Fair enough, In Bruges is not recommended then. (Although if you do come across it check it out because it is tremendous)
I think I'm one of the few people that liked Seven Psychopaths better than In Bruges.
I know I'm also likely in the minority about this, but it's mainly due to me not caring for the ending of In Bruges. I highly enjoyed everything leading up to it though. I just wish it ended differently.
I think I'm one of the few people that liked Seven Psychopaths better than In Bruges.
I know I'm also likely in the minority about this, but it's mainly due to me not caring for the ending of In Bruges. I highly enjoyed everything leading up to it though. I just wish it ended differently.
What's your problem with the ending with In Bruges, the ambiguity of just how silly it gets?
I mainly prefer In Bruges to Seven Psychopaths simply because 7 Psychos is very superficial and gracious in what it criticises. It makes for a funny film, but it muddles up what it's trying to say all too frequently.
I just got done watching Vivre Sa Vie. The only other Jean-Luc Godard film I've seen is Breathless and to be honest, I didn't care for either of them. Vivre Sa Vie is interesting at times and I can understand it's influence (as well as other Godard films) but it's So. Slow.
I just got done watching Vivre Sa Vie. The only other Jean-Luc Godard film I've seen is Breathless and to be honest, I didn't care for either of them. Vivre Sa Vie is interesting at times and I can understand it's influence (as well as other Godard films) but it's So. Slow.
Interesting premise, though.
Of Jean-Luc Godard's films, I've only seen Pierrot Le Fou and Alphaville. I've determined that the guy is way too weird for my tastes.
What's your problem with the ending with In Bruges, the ambiguity of just how silly it gets?
I mainly prefer In Bruges to Seven Psychopaths simply because 7 Psychos is very superficial and gracious in what it criticises. It makes for a funny film, but it muddles up what it's trying to say all too frequently.
Well, unless they somehow pulled a Drive with the ending,
[Show spoiler]Colin Farrell's character would be dead. If that is the case that he is actually dead, then they could have very well wrote it differently to have him go and not even be in Bruges to get shot by Ralph Fiennes. I don't care for movies that make the main character likeable (even for a killer), only to have them get killed.
The Good:Stellar performances from the ensemble cast, most notably Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, John Turturro, and David Huddleston. Memorable characters -- The Dude! Walter! Jesus! The German Nihilists! Sam Elliott! (That voice...) Extremely quotable. Absurdly amusing. Fantastic soundtrack. Superb cinematography by Roger Deakins. Gutterballs.
The Bad:I don't think it's a mess like some do. It is, however, quite aimless, and two hours for such a plotless film is simply too long. Jokes are hit-and-miss. Dialogue has way too many cuss words.
The Bottom Line:Great one-liners? Check. Great scenes? Check. Great performances? Check. Great film? Nope. The Big Lebowski is a movie of moments, but as a whole, it's just not quite as good as most claim it to be. I know, I know... That's just, like, my opinion, man. But I wonder, would this film have such a massive cult following if, say, Bridges wasn't The Dude?
I won't write a review. I'll just say that I am in 100% agreement with Jvince. He nails every "bad" detail" that bothered me.
I'll add that the movement through time feels very clunky and jerky. Tries way too hard and feels contrived.
Meh. 2.5/5
Quote:
Originally Posted by KilloWertz
I thought I wasn't going to join the club whenever his bad review was posted, but after watching it last month I did just that. I would have probably given it a 3/5, but close enough. The half point is probably because I'm not as hard on how the story ended up turning out. Sure, it might have been too easy, but I still thought it was a clever plan.
The second half was borderline boring, but I liked the second half. Still, in the end, it's one of the few Steven Soderbergh movies I have no interest in ever owning.
Of Jean-Luc Godard's films, I've only seen Pierrot Le Fou and Alphaville. I've determined that the guy is way too weird for my tastes.
I've only seen Band of Outsiders. It was actually part of my large haul from last week on the first day of the Criterion sale. I watched it on Saturday and enjoyed it.
Like I told the person that you quoted in another thread, it's likely his most accessible film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvince
I never noticed until you quoted my post that I said that the second half was boring when I meant the first half. Oops.
The first Despicable Me film has come out as a personal favorite among CGI-animations; it is a zany world of mad supervillains, awesome gadgets and superweapons, funny characters, and some of the most quotable and most hilarious dialogue I've seen in a while.
This second film offers more of the same, for better or for worse. It does still dish out huge helpings of imaginative gadgets, transforming vehicles, crazy weapons, and mad villains. There's still a huge amount of slappy, silly comedy, amusing dialogue, and fun characters. The minions are back in full force, often stealing the show with their zany antics and unique lingo.
The only problem is, something feels out of place. Part of it is the comedy; there's certainly a lot of physical gags at work, but it doesn't feel as fresh or memorable as the first film. The dialogue is also lacking in particularly memorable or quotable lines. The gags feel like they're aiming more and more at the kids, and while they'll certainly get a kick out of everything, it'll leave the adults wishing there was something more.
I think the plot is also to blame. It is notable for progressing the characters along in their relationships. In doing so, it puts out a number of individual subplots that don't really tie into the main story. The subplots in the first film at least tied in with the main conflict, but here, it's purely distracting and random. That being said, I did enjoy the characters and their nuances.
This film utilizes the same animation style and quality as the first film. It shows a little more ambition as it fills up the screen with endless minions and detailed settings. Movements are cartoony and exaggerated, as before. Character designs are pretty much the same as before; they're wild, but distinctive. Even though some viewers found Kristen Wiig's character a little too animated and wacky, I enjoyed watching her. Voice-acting from the whole cast is great. The writing is okay. Designs for all the settings, props, costumes, and creatures are decent. Music is pretty lively and fun.
I personally favor the first film over this sequel, but it is fun to see the characters and minions back in action, and to see new faces and new gizmos on display. Unfortunately, the film seems to aim more at the lowest-common denominator, and the plot suffers a little; it's great for kids, okay for adults, and would be worth a rental for anybody who wants more of Gru and the imaginative world he inhabits.
4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)
Recommendation: As a rental.
Notes:
A couple of good laughs came from a few blatant film references:
[Show spoiler]the chicken popping out of Gru's sweater was exactly like the Alien chestburster, and the purple minion screaming at him was just like the ending for Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78.
Next greatest random selection: Apocalypse Now!
"'Never get out of the boat.' Absolutely g****mn right! Unless you were goin' all the way..." - Martin Sheen
Apocalypse Now is an experience so weird, disturbing, and dark, I had to take a class to fully understand it. The key thing is that it's more than a mere war movie; as an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's book, Heart of Darkness, the film is a dark and primal exploration of the savagery of the human heart, and a journey into insanity.
Set in the Vietnam war, there are just a few combat scenes in Apocalypse Now. The beach attack in the beginning half of the film is probably the most impressive action scene, for it is well-staged and thrilling. The rest of the film, however, settles into a slower, moodier, and more trance-like pacing. Action and violence occurs sporadically, but most of the film plays out like a mesmerizing nightmare. Much like a nightmare, there are gnarly and scary things to see, but it's hard to turn away from it.
Therein lies the film's greatest strength: its ability to convey horror and insanity within its narrative. The story itself is all about the journey into the "heart of darkness," figuratively and literally. As the characters traverse deeper into enemy territory, civilization gradually breaks down, until they reach a savage core. Thus, things become crazier, more insane, and more brutal, right up to the end. By the time you reach the end, strong themes emerge concerning savagery, the darkness of the human spirit, and morality. As a war movie, the film also harps a lot on the futility and insanity of war.
Even on the surface level, the story is pretty solid. The plot is pretty random, but it follows the structure of Joseph Conrad's novel pretty closely, and uses a lot of the same characters. The film treats the story and characters with diligent respect; even though it adapts a lot from the original book, it makes things fit into the Vietnam setting really well, and makes them stand out in their own unique ways. Whether you look at it as an adaptation or just another war movie, it works.
The filmmakers went through Hell and back to make this movie. The actual shooting went on sixteen months and went well over-budget, and in all that time, there were horrendous problems. Martin Sheen nearly died from a heart attack during filming. That scene in the beginning when he punches a mirror is not acting, and that was real blood on his hands. Marlon Brando arrived on the set totally unprepared for his role, causing even more grief. Other actors succumbed to substance abuse. Director Francis Ford Coppola lost a ton of weight during this project; later, he had an affair, which strained things even further. A typhoon destroyed some of the sets, delaying the production even further. The helicopters, which were on loan from the Filipino government, had to be withdrawn at certain times (even in the middle of shooting) to fight rebels in the area. The sheer amount of stress is palpable on-screen, and helps make it feel more real.
The film has splendid photography and editing. Acting is quite decent from the whole cast, and is admirable considering all they went through. Writing is good. This production uses a plethora of very real-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. A lot of scenes are specifically staged to reflect actual iconic events of the Vietnam war, for decent effect. This film also uses a very fresh and original sound design; it was the first to use a 70mm Dolby Stereo surround-sound system, and it is awesome. Music is wild: the actual score is really funky, but the use of the Doors music and Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is iconic.
There are at least two versions of this film available. The theatrical cut is a good, trim version that runs for two-and-a-half hours. The Redux edition adds on another 49 minutes: a massive wealth of new scenes, which slows things down a bit, but offers a lot more to the story and themes. There are a few scenes in the Redux version I didn't care for, but it is well worth seeing at least once. An alternate end-credits sequence was filmed (a fairly awesome scene where everything blows up), but never used for any of the film's cuts; it can be seen as a DVD or Blu-Ray special feature only.
Apocalypse Now is a sobering and mesmerizing exploration into the dark pit of mankind's primal soul. It gets pretty weird, dark, and violent, but the film is never distasteful about it. Even though it might be a hard thing to watch, in terms of its content and storytelling, it is worthwhile seeing at least once.
Pacific Rim 3D was glorious. I saw it on Petaluma's D-Box experience—one of only a few dozen in the world (at the Pacific rim, appropriately enough). It was almost too perfect for this particular film. At the Favreau/Del Toro Comic Con Panel at Hall H a few years ago, Guillermo kept going off about this "Pacific Rim" like it was this mystical baby of his that wasn't ready to see the world yet. However, even revealing it in small doses over the next few years couldn't prevent me from overdosing on this baby's spectacular action sequences.
Visual effects are superb, despite one dark action scene at the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised to see this nominated for an Oscar. Cinematography was also well done. There was not a single moment I wasn't enthralled by the sheer massiveness of these machines and monsters (Independence Day did this well—emphasizing the size of the mothership). The pacing works and the film stays on its feet, though the middle is too climactic. Some formulaic steps are dodged in favor of humor or originality, which keeps eye-rolling at a minimal. I enjoyed seeing a few references in there, including a particular death scene from Deep Blue Sea
[Show spoiler](Sam Jackson's)
.
Pacific Rim surpassed my expectations, which were pretty decent to begin with given the likes of Del Toro, Elba, Kikuchi, Day, Perlman, and even Game of Thrones composer, Ramin Djawadi. It delivers spectacular action, impressive visuals, and an original background. Like Al said (and let's be honest, I thought about going to read his review since the movie ended): delivering high-budget justice to the genre has been a long time coming. Now let's see how Bryan Cranston takes down Godzilla.
DJ,
Nice to see you are still alive I would love to have another epic 127 Hours-style debate with you one of these days.
I will definitely try to see Lore sometime soon. It's been in my wish list for quite some time.
Definitely, that was a good debate. Speaking of, I might give Trance a blind-buy.
And yes, check it out! It is somewhat of a haunting film yet beautiful cinematography. Also, I was surprised at how recent the special features were. I think I watched one feature on the blu-ray less than a month after it was filmed.
I'll try to get on here more often. I'll be at San Diego Comic Con this weekend and will be keeping my eyes peeled for blu-ray exclusives, special announcements, etc.
Definitely, that was a good debate. Speaking of, I might give Trance a blind-buy.
And yes, check it out! It is somewhat of a haunting film yet beautiful cinematography. Also, I was surprised at how recent the special features were. I think I watched one feature on the blu-ray less than a month after it was filmed.
I'll try to get on here more often. I'll be at San Diego Comic Con this weekend and will be keeping my eyes peeled for blu-ray exclusives, special announcements, etc.
Trance is so-so, I enjoyed it when I saw it, but I think it's a film with very little replay value. It's definitely one of his weaker films, although it is no 'Life Less Ordinary' kind of lousy.
It is worth checking out, but not worth a blind buy. Also have an awesome time at Comic-Con.
The Bad:I don't think it's a mess like some do. It is, however, quite aimless, and two hours for such a plotless film is simply too long. Jokes are hit-and-miss. Dialogue has way too many cuss words.
The Bottom Line:Great one-liners? Check. Great scenes? Check. Great performances? Check. Great film? Nope. The Big Lebowski is a movie of moments, but as a whole, it's just not quite as good as most claim it to be. I know, I know... That's just, like, my opinion, man. But I wonder, would this film have such a massive cult following if, say, Bridges wasn't The Dude?
The Good:Impressive performance from Melissa George. Movie is intense and unpredictable. The references to Greek mythology are a nice touch. Props for attempting something so ambitious.
The Bad:I didn't find it confusing, but I thought the story is filled with logical inconsistencies, like why does Jess have no memory of these events and why does she keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over? I mean, think about it. She should remember everything, right? And if it is her nap that causes her to forget, why forget only those specific memories? And how about the ax? How does it keep returning to where it originally was?
The Bottom Line:Sorry, guys, but Triangle just didn't make much sense to me in the end. If someone could convince me I'm wrong, a rewatch would be in order, along with a full serving of crow.
I just got done watching Vivre Sa Vie. The only other Jean-Luc Godard film I've seen is Breathless and to be honest, I didn't care for either of them. Vivre Sa Vie is interesting at times and I can understand it's influence (as well as other Godard films) but it's So. Slow.
Interesting premise, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange
Of Jean-Luc Godard's films, I've only seen Pierrot Le Fou and Alphaville. I've determined that the guy is way too weird for my tastes.
Yeah, I also can't get in Godard. But at least he discovered one of the hottest actresses ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange
Next greatest random selection: Apocalypse Now!
[Show spoiler]"'Never get out of the boat.' Absolutely g****mn right! Unless you were goin' all the way..." - Martin Sheen
[Show spoiler]
Apocalypse Now is an experience so weird, disturbing, and dark, I had to take a class to fully understand it. The key thing is that it's more than a mere war movie; as an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's book, Heart of Darkness, the film is a dark and primal exploration of the savagery of the human heart, and a journey into insanity.
Set in the Vietnam war, there are just a few combat scenes in Apocalypse Now. The beach attack in the beginning half of the film is probably the most impressive action scene, for it is well-staged and thrilling. The rest of the film, however, settles into a slower, moodier, and more trance-like pacing. Action and violence occurs sporadically, but most of the film plays out like a mesmerizing nightmare. Much like a nightmare, there are gnarly and scary things to see, but it's hard to turn away from it.
Therein lies the film's greatest strength: its ability to convey horror and insanity within its narrative. The story itself is all about the journey into the "heart of darkness," figuratively and literally. As the characters traverse deeper into enemy territory, civilization gradually breaks down, until they reach a savage core. Thus, things become crazier, more insane, and more brutal, right up to the end. By the time you reach the end, strong themes emerge concerning savagery, the darkness of the human spirit, and morality. As a war movie, the film also harps a lot on the futility and insanity of war.
Even on the surface level, the story is pretty solid. The plot is pretty random, but it follows the structure of Joseph Conrad's novel pretty closely, and uses a lot of the same characters. The film treats the story and characters with diligent respect; even though it adapts a lot from the original book, it makes things fit into the Vietnam setting really well, and makes them stand out in their own unique ways. Whether you look at it as an adaptation or just another war movie, it works.
The filmmakers went through Hell and back to make this movie. The actual shooting went on sixteen months and went well over-budget, and in all that time, there were horrendous problems. Martin Sheen nearly died from a heart attack during filming. That scene in the beginning when he punches a mirror is not acting, and that was real blood on his hands. Marlon Brando arrived on the set totally unprepared for his role, causing even more grief. Other actors succumbed to substance abuse. Director Francis Ford Coppola lost a ton of weight during this project; later, he had an affair, which strained things even further. A typhoon destroyed some of the sets, delaying the production even further. The helicopters, which were on loan from the Filipino government, had to be withdrawn at certain times (even in the middle of shooting) to fight rebels in the area. The sheer amount of stress is palpable on-screen, and helps make it feel more real.
The film has splendid photography and editing. Acting is quite decent from the whole cast, and is admirable considering all they went through. Writing is good. This production uses a plethora of very real-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. A lot of scenes are specifically staged to reflect actual iconic events of the Vietnam war, for decent effect. This film also uses a very fresh and original sound design; it was the first to use a 70mm Dolby Stereo surround-sound system, and it is awesome. Music is wild: the actual score is really funky, but the use of the Doors music and Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is iconic.
There are at least two versions of this film available. The theatrical cut is a good, trim version that runs for two-and-a-half hours. The Redux edition adds on another 49 minutes: a massive wealth of new scenes, which slows things down a bit, but offers a lot more to the story and themes. There are a few scenes in the Redux version I didn't care for, but it is well worth seeing at least once. An alternate end-credits sequence was filmed (a fairly awesome scene where everything blows up), but never used for any of the film's cuts; it can be seen as a DVD or Blu-Ray special feature only.
Apocalypse Now is a sobering and mesmerizing exploration into the dark pit of mankind's primal soul. It gets pretty weird, dark, and violent, but the film is never distasteful about it. Even though it might be a hard thing to watch, in terms of its content and storytelling, it is worthwhile seeing at least once.
This Blu-Ray has some soft-looking parts, but it is as sharp as it can get. Colors and contrast are spectacular. Sound is awesome.
PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 5/5
I don't know why, but Apocalypse Now is one of those films I could keep rewatching despite its content and duration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DjMethod
Pacific Rim
[Show spoiler]Pacific Rim 3D was glorious. I saw it on Petaluma's D-Box experience—one of only a few dozen in the world (at the Pacific rim, appropriately enough). It was almost too perfect for this particular film. At the Favreau/Del Toro Comic Con Panel at Hall H a few years ago, Guillermo kept going off about this "Pacific Rim" like it was this mystical baby of his that wasn't ready to see the world yet. However, even revealing it in small doses over the next few years couldn't prevent me from overdosing on this baby's spectacular action sequences.
Visual effects are superb, despite one dark action scene at the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised to see this nominated for an Oscar. Cinematography was also well done. There was not a single moment I wasn't enthralled by the sheer massiveness of these machines and monsters (Independence Day did this well—emphasizing the size of the mothership). The pacing works and the film stays on its feet, though the middle is too climactic. Some formulaic steps are dodged in favor of humor or originality, which keeps eye-rolling at a minimal. I enjoyed seeing a few references in there, including a particular death scene from Deep Blue Sea
[Show spoiler](Sam Jackson's)
.
Pacific Rim surpassed my expectations, which were pretty decent to begin with given the likes of Del Toro, Elba, Kikuchi, Day, Perlman, and even Game of Thrones composer, Ramin Djawadi. It delivers spectacular action, impressive visuals, and an original background. Like Al said (and let's be honest, I thought about going to read his review since the movie ended): delivering high-budget justice to the genre has been a long time coming. Now let's see how Bryan Cranston takes down Godzilla.
4/5
DJ, you're still alive?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by legendarymatt92
Such a succinct summary of its problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy
This will not stand man, you know, this agression will not stand.
The Good:Impressive performance from Melissa George. Movie is intense and unpredictable. The references to Greek mythology are a nice touch. Props for attempting something so ambitious.
The Bad:I didn't find it confusing, but I thought the story is filled with logical inconsistencies, like why does Jess have no memory of these events and why does she keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over? I mean, think about it. She should remember everything, right? And if it is her nap that causes her to forget, why forget only those specific memories? And how about the ax? How does it keep returning to where it originally was?
The Bottom Line:Sorry, guys, but Triangle just didn't make much sense to me in the end. If someone could convince me I'm wrong, a rewatch would be in order, along with a full serving of crow.
She doesn't remember because
[Show spoiler]she bangs her head when the boat capsizes, or something like that, it's been ages since I watched it agin
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
(Although if you do come across it check it out because it is tremendous
)
Also have an awesome time at Comic-Con.
Such a succinct summary of its problems.
Linear Mode
