The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Batman1980]

Spring Breakers is a mess, it pretty much IS just a movie about hot 20 somethings showing off their toned bodies and lots of gun violence in the last 20 minutes or so but I still liked it enough to rate it 3.5/5. Will definitely be getting it on BD next week when it hits stores, bit worried that it doesn't seem to be in any ads so it may be dropping at a horrid price.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Spring Breakers is a mess, it pretty much IS just a movie about hot 20 somethings showing off their toned bodies and lots of gun violence in the last 20 minutes or so but I still liked it enough to rate it 3.5/5. Will definitely be getting it on BD next week when it hits stores, bit worried that it doesn't seem to be in any ads so it may be dropping at a horrid price.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Foggy

It's a mess, it happens. It doesn't mesh well but there's 3 girls I really like in it and for some reason as ridiculous as it is, I really enjoy it, even if I wish Selena had been in it a lot more.

[Al_The_Strange]

There are probably a bunch of "messy" movies I like.

Looks like I'm adding Spring Breakers to my rent list too.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

There are probably a bunch of "messy" movies I like.

Looks like I'm adding Spring Breakers to my rent list too.

•You very well might. worth seeing for the conversation alone.

•prediction: Al will give WHD a 4/5 maybe a 4.5, afterall, it's better than Olympus in nearly every way.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Ah good, I hope you like it. It sounds like I have an ulterior motive by pushing it so hard, but it's just that almost everyone else on here hates it and I quite liked it. Please let us know what you think about it when you check it out!

It's all good. Like Al said, there's plenty of movies that I highly enjoy that are hated as well. I've always said I have to see it to believe it if they did truly blow a comedy with a cast as good as the one for that, so I always planned on watching it no matter what.

Despite my obvious lowered expectations from before it's arrival to theaters, I still think I could end up enjoying it as well. I have a cheap copy off eBay coming.

[jvince]

High Fidelity (2000)
dir. Stephen Frears

The Good: Top five reasons why High Fidelity is a great film: 1. John Cusack delivers the best performance of his career. (Yes, better than Say Anything. Better than Being John Malkovich. Better than Thin Red Line. Better than Grosse Pointe Blank. Better than 2012.); 2. Jack Black is actually pretty funny and -- surprise -- not annoying here; 3. One of the finest examples of fourth wall breaking; 4. Excellent screenplay by Cusack, D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, and Scott Rosenberg, based on the novel by Nick Hornby (About a Boy); 5. Fantastic songs, with the highlight being a soulful rendition of Marvin Gaye's 'Let's Get It On' by Sonic Death Monkey/Kathleen Turner Overdrive/Barry Jive and the Uptown Five.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: The modern-day Annie Hall. You'll be putting this on repeat. Highly recommended.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

It's a mess, it happens. It doesn't mesh well but there's 3 girls I really like in it and for some reason as ridiculous as it is, I really enjoy it, even if I wish Selena had been in it a lot more.

Oh right I get it now...

[Show spoiler]

[jvince]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I've been away for a week and this is what happens? Al is surprisingly unforgiving with the flaws in World War Z , jvince points out that tits are one of the only good things in Spring Breakers and djmethod is the only person on these boards who is excited to see Burt Wonderstone ! I don't think I can stand going away again :P

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

That was kinda an odd week, huh?

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Will try to post my positive White House Down review today

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Spring Breakers is a mess, it pretty much IS just a movie about hot 20 somethings showing off their toned bodies and lots of gun violence in the last 20 minutes or so but I still liked it enough to rate it 3.5/5. Will definitely be getting it on BD next week when it hits stores, bit worried that it doesn't seem to be in any ads so it may be dropping at a horrid price.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Oh right I get it now...

[Show spoiler]

It's the tits. Just admit it.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

That was kinda an odd week, huh?

It's the tits. Just admit it.

Yes, just a little bit

I'm relatively eager to see these tits since they're such an incredible part of the movie for you, man -- they better be exquisite

[legendarymatt92]

Snitch (dir. Ric Roman Waugh, 2013)


"...you're the one teaching me what real character and integrity is all about. I love you, son."


The Good Points: Different, more dramatic and emotionally deep, performance from The Rock. Interesting concept with a distinct and refreshing lack of extreme violence and weapons for the most part. Much more entertaining and intellectual storyline than the usual shoot-'em-up fare Rock might be in.

The Bad Points: Extremely preachy -- it's a not-so-subtle social critique bumped up on heavy-hitting steroids. It's slightly meandering at times, especially given its intriguing, real-life premise. A saccharine-sweet ending that won't be to everyone's tastes. Does anyone really expect low-life gangsters not to be scared of the massive protagonist?!


Whilst Snitch contains nothing groundbreaking or original, its intriguing concept and surprisingly dramatic performance from The Rock overshadows its flaws - chiefly among them its in-your-face message - and provides enough entertainment for most people...barely.


6/10

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Abdrewes]

Amidst a Airport-like first act that plunges is in to the deepens of an unwieldy number of subplots, there is a brief moment of respite that reveals the tone Director Roland Emmerich and company aim to strike. While giving a brief overview of the buildings that comprise the White House, the tour guide points out the section that was blown up in Independence Day (also directed by Emmerich). It is a moment at once refreshingly self reverential and lovingly respectful of unpretentious action films of another era. Consider this Roland Emmerich's homage to American action and disaster films that populated the marketplace decades ago.

In the aforementioned broad sweeping introduction, we meet John Cale played by the increasingly charismatic Channing Tatum in yet another role that accentuates his athleticism and cocksure composure. Though, currently bodyguard to the Speaker of the House, Eli Raphelson (a haggard Richard Jenkins) he has his sights on a Secret Service position—presumably to impress his middle school daughter Emily (Joey King) whom runs her own political YouTube channel (which John constantly misnomers a "video blog").

However, John's upwardly mobile plans are dealt a sobering blow when he finds that the interviewee is none other than a college acquaintance (Maggie Gyllenhaal) whom is well aware of his non-committal past history. Not even his recent turn as a decorated Afghanistan war veteran will convince her otherwise. John therefore attempts to bury the disheartening news by making the most of the White House field trip he promised Emily.

The brief bonding scenes before the inevitable White House coup prove how naturally the two are suited as father and daughter. The occasions where Emily upsets him by addressing him by his first name (both in public and private), never failed to endear me to our soon to be John McClane-like hero. There has to be motivation for us to see the glass shattering action to the end, and here we find it: simple, but effective.

As the tour winds to a close, President James Sawyer makes an unexpected descending staircase entrance. Here we are subject to one of the many moments of improbable wish-fulfillment: he accepts Emily's invitation to record a personal message for her YouTube channel. The thirteen tear old actress' conveyance of star-struck giddy shock is worth the price of admission, even if Emmerich's signature brand of monument crushing mayhem is not one's preferred form of entertainment.

...And what mayhem! Emmerich is often dismissed as a loud, baggy action-spectacles akin to those of Michael Bay. That is not to say Michael Bay is a poor director (The Rock and Pain & Gain are very fine films) or that his films do not share similar qualities, but the manner in which their films are conceived, shot and edited are very dissimilar.

Emmerich is a classical action filmmaker through and through. He is as fervent a disciple of John McTiernan (in interviews he notes the influence of Die Hard on this picture) as the fervent tour guide is of the renovations of Jacqueline Kennedy. Again working with Anna Foerster (whom has shot three of his films and seved as second unit director on two), the images are distinctly Emmerich: crisp, intelligible Steadicam and crane shots; expert use of variable framing; and a painter's sense of light, shadow and fine detail.

Whereas the similarly premised Olympus has Fallen was poorly lit and riddled with second-rate special effects, White House down is illustrious and tactile. The color palate full of of marble whites, steely blues and amber hues renders each frame a modest delight. The film has a soaring romantic allure in the way rustling autumnal leaves cling to exterior walkways, 18th century paintings hang majestically on walls (Tom Freeman's painting of the burning of the White House by British troops during the War of 1812 serves as a crucial plot point), and interior plastering was shaded. It's evident Emmerich is enamored with the various textures that comprise the most famous building in America, but not as much as seeing it pierced by heavy duty artillery, rocket launchers and grenades.

When one of the lead henchmen disposes of the Secretary of Defense thus uttering the quip, "he wasn't doing his job very well," it is clear the film is tactfully playing with the deep rooted political cynicism that has pervaded the American cultural landscape since the Nixon administration. We all want to see something burn and a full 130 minutes of wanton destruction more than satiates that urge. As I waded through the dense popcorn munching crowds of the Summer movie season to the guitar strumming of The Rolling Stone's seminal Rock hit, "Street Fighting Man," I let out a palpable sigh upon the realization that such events are much too improbable to happen and that the feel-good buzz will have left my system before the workweek commences.

[legendarymatt92]

Dead Man Down (dir. Niels Arden Oplev, 2013)

"Revenge. I've never thought about it before but, when I saw you, I knew I had my answer."

There's something about Dead Man Down that is curiously original; it certainly isn't the plot, which has appeared multiple times before in various genres, or its characters, who are all low-life criminals caught in the violent, labyrinthine cesspit of life, but an essence of something that is fundamentally hard to explain. That being said, give me a moment to try and vocalise it.

Most of its perfection -- and, believe me, this does achieve perfection frequently -- comes from its assured, masterful direction, courtesy of the Danish director Oplev (best known for his Swedish language grasping with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo material). The film allows us such a varied, extravagant look at a corrupt, dangerous city populated by wronged people with revenge on their minds, that it's almost impossible to take your eyes off the screen; the stale conventions of the neo-noir genre peel off as a confident storyteller places down his roots. Every sequence, ranging from the lean, purely visual pickings to the bloated, dialogue-heavy moments, are there for a particular reason, and no scene ever feels superfluous. Even more impressive, the pacing (aside from two minor moments) is always kept even and unobtrusive; the narrative is a logical progression, never forced or hindered by anyone's hand.

For me, this is the masterpiece of the year and, quite possibly, the decade, certainly for the surprising aspect of it, at least. There's such an incredible flow, such an indelible relishing in the convoluted plot and the intricate twists, to the whole thing that it just flies past, a blur of light and colour, gunshots and sexually-charged dialogue, a 1940s pulp fiction writer's wet-dream. Yes, it's unoriginal, but it just deals with and utilises the conventions better than 99% of the other movies released in similar genres do each year.

Even with all this praise, the film does have its problems, and the final act is chief among them; an all-out firefight in a mansion gives Oplev an opportunity to burst out the frantic, excited editing style and up the ante, but it feels at extreme odds to the downplayed, almost methodical majority of the film. However, even the curious action sequence is well-made, and its escalation and departure from the status quo is interesting and bombastic in enjoyable measures.

The bottom line is that there is nothing disingenuous about Dead Man Down or it's story; it's in its meticulous direction that it overcomes its mediocre narrative, but it always feels real and raw, even in its weakest moments. For me, it's the biggest surprise of the year, and whilst it isn't the best film I've seen, it's a flawed masterpiece that everyone should check out.

9/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest random selection: 300

"SPARTANS!!! Prepare for glory!!!" - Gerard Butler

Thousands of years ago, the Persian Empire threatened to trample over ancient Greece in a series of historic battles. The first such battle was Thermopylae; it was an incredible fight in which a small band of Spartan warriors held off a massive wave of Persian invaders for three days. Ancient accounts describe a barrage of arrows that literally blocked out the sun. Through the use of brilliant strategy, superior armor and weapons, and better training, the three hundred Spartans put up a heck of a fight against insurmountable odds. This battle was popularized throughout the ages; more recent tellings of the story include the 1962 film The 300 Spartans (which I found to be rather lame), and Frank Miller's graphic novel 300, which was influenced by that film.

The film 300 follows the graphic novel very closely, with additional embellishments to the story. In spite of that, the film presents a highly mythologized and exaggerated take on the Battle of Thermopylae; it's a fantastic, epic, and incredible spectacle to watch the brutal Spartans take on endless waves of Persian troops (including the Immortals, shown on screen as being literally monstrous). Barrages of arrows literally block out the sun. Strange creatures, including an orc-like giant, elephants, and a rhinoceros, charge into battle. Blood flies freely across the screen frequently; with a dark and brooding tone, the film overall is one of the most hard-edged and wickedest epics committed to film. It won't appeal to everybody, especially with the film's penchant for frequent slow-motion and CGI backgrounds, but at its time it was considered one of the awesomest and most macho films ever made.

Since this film is based on a graphic novel, it does take liberties with the historic facts. Obviously, the Spartans never fought without wearing armor; there never was a rhino in battle; Ephialtes was never a hunchback; the Immortals were actual men, not monsters; and so on. However, the film does get a few details surprisingly right; the events actually happened, the tactics appear mostly-sound, and the portrayal of Spartan upbringing is correct. The blending of historic fact with myth may not sit well with history buffs, but it makes for fantastic storytelling.

The story itself is well-structured, purposefully outlining the background of the battle and showing the assembly of the armies before breaking out in bloody mayhem. Characters aren't particularly likable (King Leonidas borders on being psychotic at times), but they are as badass as they come.

This film is overloaded with style, using slow-motion and animations in nearly every scene. With the film's framing and editing, however, it really does look like a graphic novel brought to life, and it's really cool that way. Acting is really extreme, almost to a ridiculous degree; Gerard Butler screams and scowls in every scene, but given the hardcore nature of his character and the material overall, he really nails the role. Everybody else fulfills their roles well. Writing is generally good; a lot of it matches up with Frank Miller's book, which in turn reflects some of the historical accounts. The use of narration is especially noteworthy, for it reinforces the film as fantastic storytelling. Brian Tyler's music score is really cool too.

Despite its liberties with the historic events, the 300 film remains the most thrilling, most awe-inspiring, and most uncompromising account of the Battle of Thermopylae. The whole film comes off as a wicked and badass experience; I personally wish more historic and fantasy films were made this way. If you can stomach the bloodshed and the excesses, this film comes recommended.

5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)

On Blu-Ray, the Complete Experience edition looks and sounds effectively perfect. This title is notorious for its purposeful use of film grain, but on a larger screen, it's nowhere near as bad as I remember.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by abdrewes

•prediction: Al will give WHD a 4/5 maybe a 4.5, afterall, it's better than Olympus in nearly every way.

[Show spoiler]Amidst a Airport-like first act that plunges is in to the deepens of an unwieldy number of subplots, there is a brief moment of respite that reveals the tone Director Roland Emmerich and company aim to strike. While giving a brief overview of the buildings that comprise the White House, the tour guide points out the section that was blown up in Independence Day (also directed by Emmerich). It is a moment at once refreshingly self reverential and lovingly respectful of unpretentious action films of another era. Consider this Roland Emmerich's homage to American action and disaster films that populated the marketplace decades ago.

In the aforementioned broad sweeping introduction, we meet John Cale played by the increasingly charismatic Channing Tatum in yet another role that accentuates his athleticism and cocksure composure. Though, currently bodyguard to the Speaker of the House, Eli Raphelson (a haggard Richard Jenkins) he has his sights on a Secret Service position—presumably to impress his middle school daughter Emily (Joey King) whom runs her own political YouTube channel (which John constantly misnomers a "video blog").

However, John's upwardly mobile plans are dealt a sobering blow when he finds that the interviewee is none other than a college acquaintance (Maggie Gyllenhaal) whom is well aware of his non-committal past history. Not even his recent turn as a decorated Afghanistan war veteran will convince her otherwise. John therefore attempts to bury the disheartening news by making the most of the White House field trip he promised Emily.

The brief bonding scenes before the inevitable White House coup prove how naturally the two are suited as father and daughter. The occasions where Emily upsets him by addressing him by his first name (both in public and private), never failed to endear me to our soon to be John McClane-like hero. There has to be motivation for us to see the glass shattering action to the end, and here we find it: simple, but effective.

As the tour winds to a close, President James Sawyer makes an unexpected descending staircase entrance. Here we are subject to one of the many moments of improbable wish-fulfillment: he accepts Emily's invitation to record a personal message for her YouTube channel. The thirteen tear old actress' conveyance of star-struck giddy shock is worth the price of admission, even if Emmerich's signature brand of monument crushing mayhem is not one's preferred form of entertainment.

...And what mayhem! Emmerich is often dismissed as a loud, baggy action-spectacles akin to those of Michael Bay. That is not to say Michael Bay is a poor director (The Rock and Pain & Gain are very fine films) or that his films do not share similar qualities, but the manner in which their films are conceived, shot and edited are very dissimilar.

Emmerich is a classical action filmmaker through and through. He is as fervent a disciple of John McTiernan (in interviews he notes the influence of Die Hard on this picture) as the fervent tour guide is of the renovations of Jacqueline Kennedy. Again working with Anna Foerster (whom has shot three of his films and seved as second unit director on two), the images are distinctly Emmerich: crisp, intelligible Steadicam and crane shots; expert use of variable framing; and a painter's sense of light, shadow and fine detail.

Whereas the similarly premised Olympus has Fallen was poorly lit and riddled with second-rate special effects, White House down is illustrious and tactile. The color palate full of of marble whites, steely blues and amber hues renders each frame a modest delight. The film has a soaring romantic allure in the way rustling autumnal leaves cling to exterior walkways, 18th century paintings hang majestically on walls (Tom Freeman's painting of the burning of the White House by British troops during the War of 1812 serves as a crucial plot point), and interior plastering was shaded. It's evident Emmerich is enamored with the various textures that comprise the most famous building in America, but not as much as seeing it pierced by heavy duty artillery, rocket launchers and grenades.

When one of the lead henchmen disposes of the Secretary of Defense thus uttering the quip, "he wasn't doing his job very well," it is clear the film is tactfully playing with the deep rooted political cynicism that has pervaded the American cultural landscape since the Nixon administration. We all want to see something burn and a full 130 minutes of wanton destruction more than satiates that urge. As I waded through the dense popcorn munching crowds of the Summer movie season to the guitar strumming of The Rolling Stone's seminal Rock hit, "Street Fighting Man," I let out a palpable sigh upon the realization that such events are much too improbable to happen and that the feel-good buzz will have left my system before the workweek commences.

Sounds good boss. I predict it'll be a 4/5 in my book, but we'll see.

I haven't been all that forgiving with Roland Emmerich's work; The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 have had so many dumb moments, even though they are entertaining. I do like his older work (Stargate, ID4, Godzilla). The only film of his I really disliked was Anonymous, so unless WHD is just as dull, I'm sureit will satisfy me.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Dead Man Down (dir. Niels Arden Oplev, 2013)

[Show spoiler]
"Revenge. I've never thought about it before but, when I saw you, I knew I had my answer."

There's something about Dead Man Down that is curiously original; it certainly isn't the plot, which has appeared multiple times before in various genres, or its characters, who are all low-life criminals caught in the violent, labyrinthine cesspit of life, but an essence of something that is fundamentally hard to explain. That being said, give me a moment to try and vocalise it.

Most of its perfection -- and, believe me, this does achieve perfection frequently -- comes from its assured, masterful direction, courtesy of the Danish director Oplev (best known for his Swedish language grasping with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo material). The film allows us such a varied, extravagant look at a corrupt, dangerous city populated by wronged people with revenge on their minds, that it's almost impossible to take your eyes off the screen; the stale conventions of the neo-noir genre peel off as a confident storyteller places down his roots. Every sequence, ranging from the lean, purely visual pickings to the bloated, dialogue-heavy moments, are there for a particular reason, and no scene ever feels superfluous. Even more impressive, the pacing (aside from two minor moments) is always kept even and unobtrusive; the narrative is a logical progression, never forced or hindered by anyone's hand.

For me, this is the masterpiece of the year and, quite possibly, the decade, certainly for the surprising aspect of it, at least. There's such an incredible flow, such an indelible relishing in the convoluted plot and the intricate twists, to the whole thing that it just flies past, a blur of light and colour, gunshots and sexually-charged dialogue, a 1940s pulp fiction writer's wet-dream. Yes, it's unoriginal, but it just deals with and utilises the conventions better than 99% of the other movies released in similar genres do each year.

Even with all this praise, the film does have its problems, and the final act is chief among them; an all-out firefight in a mansion gives Oplev an opportunity to burst out the frantic, excited editing style and up the ante, but it feels at extreme odds to the downplayed, almost methodical majority of the film. However, even the curious action sequence is well-made, and its escalation and departure from the status quo is interesting and bombastic in enjoyable measures.

The bottom line is that there is nothing disingenuous about Dead Man Down or it's story; it's in its meticulous direction that it overcomes its mediocre narrative, but it always feels real and raw, even in its weakest moments. For me, it's the biggest surprise of the year, and whilst it isn't the best film I've seen, it's a flawed masterpiece that everyone should check out.

9/10

I do want to see this film too. It looks cool, but the critical reviews haven't been all that great. Glad to see something positive about it.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Dead Man Down (dir. Niels Arden Oplev, 2013)

[Show spoiler]"Revenge. I've never thought about it before but, when I saw you, I knew I had my answer."

There's something about Dead Man Down that is curiously original; it certainly isn't the plot, which has appeared multiple times before in various genres, or its characters, who are all low-life criminals caught in the violent, labyrinthine cesspit of life, but an essence of something that is fundamentally hard to explain. That being said, give me a moment to try and vocalise it.

Most of its perfection -- and, believe me, this does achieve perfection frequently -- comes from its assured, masterful direction, courtesy of the Danish director Oplev (best known for his Swedish language grasping with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo material). The film allows us such a varied, extravagant look at a corrupt, dangerous city populated by wronged people with revenge on their minds, that it's almost impossible to take your eyes off the screen; the stale conventions of the neo-noir genre peel off as a confident storyteller places down his roots. Every sequence, ranging from the lean, purely visual pickings to the bloated, dialogue-heavy moments, are there for a particular reason, and no scene ever feels superfluous. Even more impressive, the pacing (aside from two minor moments) is always kept even and unobtrusive; the narrative is a logical progression, never forced or hindered by anyone's hand.

For me, this is the masterpiece of the year and, quite possibly, the decade, certainly for the surprising aspect of it, at least. There's such an incredible flow, such an indelible relishing in the convoluted plot and the intricate twists, to the whole thing that it just flies past, a blur of light and colour, gunshots and sexually-charged dialogue, a 1940s pulp fiction writer's wet-dream. Yes, it's unoriginal, but it just deals with and utilises the conventions better than 99% of the other movies released in similar genres do each year.

Even with all this praise, the film does have its problems, and the final act is chief among them; an all-out firefight in a mansion gives Oplev an opportunity to burst out the frantic, excited editing style and up the ante, but it feels at extreme odds to the downplayed, almost methodical majority of the film. However, even the curious action sequence is well-made, and its escalation and departure from the status quo is interesting and bombastic in enjoyable measures.

The bottom line is that there is nothing disingenuous about Dead Man Down or it's story; it's in its meticulous direction that it overcomes its mediocre narrative, but it always feels real and raw, even in its weakest moments. For me, it's the biggest surprise of the year, and whilst it isn't the best film I've seen, it's a flawed masterpiece that everyone should check out.

9/10

Another one you go against the critics with. I have even more confidence in this than Burt Wonderstone, so hopefully I agree with you on this one.

I was actually surprised at the reception the movie got from the critics.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Another one you go against the critics with. I have even more confidence in this than Burt Wonderstone, so hopefully I agree with you on this one.

I was actually surprised at the reception the movie got from the critics.

I'm usually quite balanced between agreeing and disagreeing with critics, but there are sometimes spates where I lean with one side on multiple movies in a row...this seems to be one of those times

Honestly, if you've seen the trailer and expect you'll like it, you probably will -- the critics were obviously looking for something that was not there, but it's a tremendous film nonetheless.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I do want to see this film too. It looks cool, but the critical reviews haven't been all that great. Glad to see something positive about it.

Well, Abdrewes and I seem to agree that it has its redeeming aspects, so hopefully you'll enjoy it too!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Well, Abdrewes and I seem to agree that it has its redeeming aspects, so hopefully you'll enjoy it too!

Can't wait wait to give it another look.

Here are my brief initial thoughts (another one of those reviews I write in the hour between classes, so excuse the muddled writing):

[Show spoiler]After the worldwide success of his Swedish adaptation of Stieg Larsson's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Niels Arden Oplev makes his English language debut with Dead Man Down. It shares commonality with his previous film in that both are stories more or less centered around the vengeful thoughts of the character played by Noomi Rapace as a cold, indifferent world refuses to share her pain.

After being hit by a drunk driver, Beatrice (Rapace) is left disfigured, quits her beautician job and lives with her mother played by the great actress Isabelle Huppert (whom is totally wasted in the role). She passes her days in lonely contemplation until an opportunity for revenge presents itself.

Victor is a newly inducted (9 months) leads a life of crime and it is apparent that he has a damaged past as well. Collin Farrell brings some of the quiet pathos we saw in In Bruges without any of the comic wit, which is not anything Oplev was going for.

One of the many faults with the film is that it has little interest in detailing much about the mob. They pretty much spend their time calmy looking for the identity of an unknown assailant that has killed several of their men and has been sending the mob boss threatening letters. In fact their collective representation is that of ignorance stupidity as they must be some of the most clueless gangsters in recent memory.

Beatrice gets Victor to agree to off the man who disfigured her in a generic, sure, but thrilling way that I won't reveal. The problem is, Beatrice is still a beautiful woman, so it's hard to believe the level at which she is distraught. Furthermore there are a group of kids that pester her, sometimes in a violent manner, and call her a monster. It's far fetched and strains credibility as the plot grinds its gears aswell.

That said, there is still palpable romantic tension between Victor and Beatrice. They are two people damaged by careless violence. The emotional isolation they convey is convincing and in the frequent stretches of slowly revealed plot details, their inner turmoil is felt.