Like the subject says, Films you have seen that you thought would be flicks/movies before viewing.
can you just fuck off
>>63432008
>can you just fuck off
Why don't you state your disagreement
>>63432218
I heard this too. Worth seeing?
>>63432008
What did he mean by this?
>>63432311
Definitely, every scene with Rocky is pure gold
>>63432175
>>63432441
I think pushing the whole flick/film/movie false dichotomy bullshit is just another way for you faggots to stroke your egos while you rest comfortably upon your high horses
so fuck off
I didn't know anything about no country for old men before seeing it so I was watching it just thinking it was a really good movie but then Llellwyn Moss died and that was the moment I knew it wasn't just a movie but pure cinema. A real film.
Nothing beats that feeling.
>>63432599
I disagree. There's a clear difference between a flick (Minions) and a film (Barry Lyndon) You can't group them together. That's like grouping Rembrandt and Koons together, or Mozart and BrokeNCYDE. It makes no sense. Totally different levels of work.
>all that hype for beane & zero pennants, zero world series wins
>daytonball gets 2 pennants and a world series win
Proves that a combination of traditional scouting and sabermetrics is the way to go.
>>63432652
obviously there are different levels of work but merely by using that sort of language you're encouraging the idea that there must be some sort of concrete, quantifiable difference between a "flick" and a "film". And not only are you implying that, you're also implying that you yourself are somehow qualified in drawing that distinction, which is pretentious as fuck. It accomplishes nothing. All you had to do was make a thread called "Movies which were far better than you expected them to be".
Fuck off.
>>63432844
It's interesting how you assume I'm not qualified to make that distinction. Stop projecting.
>>63433054
Well then who the fuck are you, bucko
>>63432218
>>63432483
Is it better than Rocky Balboa?
>>63433054
>It's interesting that someone assumes a random asshole on Baneposting HQ isn't qualified to make the distinction between different levels of movie quality
>>63432218
It's a movie. But a good one.
Severely underrated movie desu
![muhammad-ali-vs-sonny-liston[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZACneVV.jpg "muhammad-ali-vs-sonny-liston[1].jpg")
>>63432218
i like it
>>63432311
Definitely. Saw it with my wife's son the other day, he loved it.
>>63432008
back to leddit
>>63433411
>my wife's son
now hold on there fella
>>63433438
fuck off
I was very ready for this to be shit.
>>63432844
>>63433087
David Fincher is the one who came up with the difference between movie and a film you fucking
I had a lot of problems with Moneyball
>It treats Beane as some sort of genius who was the sole reason for the A's success while completely ignoring their god-tier starting rotation and MVP season from Miguel Tejada
Pretty self explanatory
>They portray Beane as a passive-aggressive, arrogant douche to his staff and management
Beane never really let's any of his scouts or the manager know what his new plan is. He just starts enacting upon it and is a smug asshole to the people that don't understand what he was trying to do. If you want to be successful, it has to be a team effort.
>Beane lets his model go public
This annoys me for two reasons. 1) It makes no sense for him to let the model be revealed to the public, while simultaneously not letting your staff in on what you're trying to do. 2) If you truly believe that the model will work and helps to compensate for your lack of a budget, why would you let other teams with bigger budgets know the model? Now everyone in the MLB uses this model, and the A's are one of the worst teams again in real life.
>The portrayal of the Yankees
I'm going to do the inexcusable and defend the Yankees on something, but bare with me. The movie makes a point to show the two team's budgets at the beginning of the movie to justify why the A's lost to them in the playoffs. A huge detail that they leave out is that the A's were up 2 game to 0 in a best of 5 series. They absolutely choked to a team that was at the tail end of a dynasty. You can't blame the budget on that. Also, the Yankees dynasty at that time was built upon the same concept of the A's. The Yankees roster was mainly composed of homegrown talent, and people they traded for that were undervalued by their previous teams. They didn't do it as scientific as the A's did, but they still followed the same system, and they did it better.
>>63434141
>The portrayal of scouts
They make scouts look like they have no clue what they're doing, and sabremetrics look like the end-all-be-all of player analysis. In reality, both can be just as effective or ineffective.
>The portrayal of Beane as a genius
Billy Beane proves my last point with his reputation for making dumb trades. In the 2014 offseason, he traded Josh Donaldson for Brett Lawrie. This season, Donaldson won the MVP, and Lawrie didn't do shit. And that's just one example of Beane's shitty trades.
TL;DR Moneyball is an entertaining movie, but inaccurate.
>Click
I don't get into the whole "best movie ever" or even best Adam Sandler movie, but I was pleasantly surprised with it
>>63433531
You're implying that it wasn't. The only part that was good was the Tiger fight. That last 20 minutes was fucking awful. Those "elite-SS" infantry just blindly charging a tank again and again?
>>63434173
On top of that, the guy that Jonah Hill portrays in the movie goes off on his own after his time with the A's and attempts the same thing elsewhere. It fails.
