I thought Hereditary was very poor. Based on that i couldnt bother watching Midsommar. There was i read a sharp divide between the critics and audience. The critics loved it. The audiences hated it.
I thought Hereditary was very poor. Based on that i couldnt bother watching Midsommar. There was i read a sharp divide between the critics and audience. The critics loved it. The audiences hated it.
As a side note, I think that having consumed magic shrooms before (not before the movie, but before as having previous experience with psychedelics), will help you enjoy Midsommar much more. The filmography/photography reflects the effects of shrooms in a very realistic way, and rightly so, as they play an important role in the movie.
Just come across this clip that I mentioned earlier from the movie Kate. Probably my favourite sequence from 2021. Simple yet effective. No matter how fecked up she is here, she's still sooo hot. Yeah I definitely would and not ashamed to say it.
Available on Netflix and originally titled 'Breach', this extremely harmless and run--of-the-mill sci-fi chiller goes further in cementing Bruce Willis' current status as a bona fide B-list, straight-to-video helmer. I'm not really sure where his next big blockbuster is coming from but at last count he's got 11 films on the go for 2022. Surely that should tell you something?
Anyway, before I pull this film apart, let me just add that I did end up sitting though it. Was it because it was that bad, I couldn't look away? Or did it indeed have some redeeming qualities? I'm not too sure. The majority of the budget must have gone to Willis because it certainly wasn't spent on production. It doesn't take much of a discerning eye these days to realise when they're being presented with a high quality gourmet classic or a no-frills TV dinner. Nothing new about the story..it's been done a hundred times before. The last of humanity on a ship to a new beginning but alien virus has other plans. Perhaps the weight of the movie is too much for Willis' reputation to carry on it's own. Perhaps he knows it's going to be another dud. Who knows? He's there in body anyway, not necessarily in spirit.
All attempts to build up any tension, sense of peril are usually thwarted by the terrible acting, lazy writing and plot development and annoying characters drifting in and out of the story at will. The few effects utiilised within the film are low-key and perhaps in a way that adds to its subversive charm. Yes, despite all these misgivings I managed to get to the plot twist, if you can call it that, right at the end. So they must have done something right? All I know is it's quite alarming where Bruce Willis' career is heading right now.
The Remains of the Day. I had seen this movie before (twice?), and I find it more difficult to think about each time. I absolutely love the book and have read it multiple times as well (and put it back on my pile yesterday), and what I particularly like about it, are all the little bits of nuance and expressions, and how the character and story slowly inch forward. Of course, every film of a book will look off for fans of the book, but I think it's particular in this case, as those tiny nuances is where the book lives most - at least to me. So I can't help but miss that in the film.
All the same, it's great movie, I think, that captures the overall themes of the book and the general characteristics of its main characters in full. It also has beautiful and strong shots and great acting. Subtle, understated, calm, historical, strong reflection on a (specific part of) society - if you like those qualities in a film, you should love this.
The Remains of the Day. I had seen this movie before (twice?), and I find it more difficult to think about each time. I absolutely love the book and have read it multiple times as well (and put it back on my pile yesterday), and what I particularly like about it, are all the little bits of nuance and expressions, and how the character and story slowly inch forward. Of course, every film of a book will look off for fans of the book, but I think it's particular in this case, as those tiny nuances is where the book lives most - at least to me. So I can't help but miss that in the film.
All the same, it's great movie, I think, that captures the overall themes of the book and the general characteristics of its main characters in full. It also has beautiful and strong shots and great acting. Subtle, understated, calm, historical, strong reflection on a (specific part of) society - if you like those qualities in a film, you should love this.
It’s one of the easier Ishiguro novels to adapt (imagine “The Unconsoled” or “When we were Orphans”). I read the book after watching the film and I felt that the film had been true in spirit. Hopkins and Thompson were superb, probably the latter’s best performance.
It’s one of the easier Ishiguro novels to adapt (imagine “The Unconsoled” or “When we were Orphans”). I read the book after watching the film and I felt that the film had been true in spirit. Hopkins and Thompson were superb, probably the latter’s best performance.
I agree, absolutely true in spirit. My issue is just that, as I said, all the little details are so important to me in this in particular book that I miss them all.
I haven't read When We Were Orphans yet (and the newest one). Is it good? Ishiguro is owe of my favorite writers - he's great across his career, and I love The Unconsoled as well.
Far better than what I expected from the trailers. Yes, the story is cliched and nothing to write home about, but the movie is so fun and has its own "personality" out from the get go. I liked how they took their liberty in viewing violence and gore because it would have been out of character for everyone in the movie if it was censored.
Very good action flick to turn off your brain and spend some good time. I think it's a move in the right direction for DC.
Far better than what I expected from the trailers. Yes, the story is cliched and nothing to write home about, but the movie is so fun and has its own "personality" out from the get go. I liked how they took their liberty in viewing violence and gore because it would have been out of character for everyone in the movie if it was censored.
Very good action flick to turn off your brain and spend some good time. I think it's a move in the right direction for DC.
Been flying many hours the past week and thus was able to watch a few flicks on the airline.
No Time To Die - 9/10 - was excellent. My fav Bond movie since Octopussy (and I really liked a few of the more recent ones). But it's near three hours long so plan ahead. Also, Lea Seydoux
Platoon - 10/10 - hadn't watched in a few years. This film is a masterpiece. I recall my grandpa, former Army LRRP and combat vet, telling me how this movie most accurately portrayed the war. Also interesting to watch and actually notice Depp more than once. Dafoe and Berenger were magnificent.
Every Last One Of Them - 2/10 - this film was shit but fun if you like all out ridiculous action with holes you can drive a proverbial truck through. And atrocious acting.
The Wrath of Man - 4/10 - it's a Statham movie, probably enough said. Interesting plot, typical improbable ending.
Still one of my favourite war films. Some very emotive scenes.
Did you watch the making of documentary on Amazon Prime? If not, it’s worth a watch. I was young when this film came out so even though I loved it, I didn’t really know much about it. The documentary makes for interesting viewing.
Oliver Stone literally threw that cast unknowingly into the jungle for weeks on end with some badass military bloke.
Rented it just there. First two hours are great. Turns into austin powers at the end where dr evil (and his loyal henchmen) want to kill the whole world. I could see the ending coming a mile off as well.
A medical student suffering from sleep paralysis finds herself plagued by a demonic entity, after moving in with her boyfriend.
The story itself was OK, there was a good story fighting to get out, the music played its part and there was a few jump scenes and the possession play book was played to its fullest. There was shades of The Exorcist and Ammyiville in it, if it had more money spent on it, it could have been so much better.
There was a few things that really let it down,the acting, the acting was dreadful, some of the worst you will see, the ending, the ending was fecking dreadful.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Feel good tribute to the original film and Harold Ramis (slightly overcooked). Turn your brain off and enjoy would be my advice. 7/10 (6 if you aren't a ghostbusters fan)
I agree, absolutely true in spirit. My issue is just that, as I said, all the little details are so important to me in this in particular book that I miss them all.
I haven't read When We Were Orphans yet (and the newest one). Is it good? Ishiguro is owe of my favorite writers - he's great across his career, and I love The Unconsoled as well.
I liked when “When We Were Orphans” a lot although I don’t think it was one of his most critically acclaimed. It is set in Shanghai in the run up to the Japanese invasion in the 1930s, and the main character is an English detective who was born there and has returned to find out what happened to his parents. Like most of his books, the main character views events from a very limited, if not skewed perspective.
I liked when “When We Were Orphans” a lot although I don’t think it was one of his most critically acclaimed. It is set in Shanghai in the run up to the Japanese invasion in the 1930s, and the main character is an English detective who was born there and has returned to find out what happened to his parents. Like most of his books, the main character views events from a very limited, if not skewed perspective.
Yeah, I've read about it, and read somewhere I think that he had been thinking of doing a detective story for years and then finally got round to one. I tend to like the genre, so I don't care if it's not his best, I'm really looking forward to it anyway.
Loved it, it has everything you liked from the first first and a bit more thrown in.
It was a cracking tribute to the original, the bits with Egon in were very well done.
There was nothing to dislike about this.
Doesn't really offer too much over and above Diane Kruger and Penelope Cruz.
The plot of bad guys getting hold of a drive which can disable the entire world has been done so many times that to improve on the genre you really have to throw a lot at it, some really fresh ideas and memorable performances. Unfortunately this does neither.
A passable action film but all rather predictable in the end.
I really liked this. Story wise there's nothing new here and it won't appeal to everyone but I enjoyed spending time with these characters, Affleck especially.
Radiance (2017): Mixed feelings about this but mostly positive. I particularly like how it captures the mixed emotions of the two main characters and the way it looks at the ambiguity of sense - using the blind man's condition to share how he both succeeds and fails in seeing the world from a new perspective. What's less good I think is the ending. It seems to struggle to decide how it wants the story to end, leaving a few question marks. 7/10
Last Child (2017): Also mixed feelings about this. It's a slow drama about two parents who have to overcome the death of their son, and who take to helping the kid they're told he saved before he died. I like the way it shows their struggle to deal with grief and how they respond to the situation by offering kindness. What I didn't like as much is the big shift it takes midway through. The idea is interesting as a plot point but it deviates quite a bit into thriller territory and I don't think it quite hits the strong emotional notes it seems to be going for. 6/10
Just in case you movie buffs are looking for some inspiration. A few 1970s classics you might have missed. The 7th highest grossing film of the year looks particularly interesting.
Number 7 was a classic, watched it many times in my teen days after finding a VHS copy in my mom/step-dads closet (it was a big score - dozens of VHS porn flicks). I would host after school socials at the hizzo complete with snacks and wine coolers. Had like 20-something teens over one afternoon and was like I gotta stop this eventually. Looking back, I should have charged an admission fee.
Available on Netflix and originally titled 'Breach', this extremely harmless and run--of-the-mill sci-fi chiller goes further in cementing Bruce Willis' current status as a bona fide B-list, straight-to-video helmer. I'm not really sure where his next big blockbuster is coming from but at last count he's got 11 films on the go for 2022. Surely that should tell you something?
Anyway, before I pull this film apart, let me just add that I did end up sitting though it. Was it because it was that bad, I couldn't look away? Or did it indeed have some redeeming qualities? I'm not too sure. The majority of the budget must have gone to Willis because it certainly wasn't spent on production. It doesn't take much of a discerning eye these days to realise when they're being presented with a high quality gourmet classic or a no-frills TV dinner. Nothing new about the story..it's been done a hundred times before. The last of humanity on a ship to a new beginning but alien virus has other plans. Perhaps the weight of the movie is too much for Willis' reputation to carry on it's own. Perhaps he knows it's going to be another dud. Who knows? He's there in body anyway, not necessarily in spirit.
All attempts to build up any tension, sense of peril are usually thwarted by the terrible acting, lazy writing and plot development and annoying characters drifting in and out of the story at will. The few effects utiilised within the film are low-key and perhaps in a way that adds to its subversive charm. Yes, despite all these misgivings I managed to get to the plot twist, if you can call it that, right at the end. So they must have done something right? All I know is it's quite alarming where Bruce Willis' career is heading right now.
The Holiday. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslett are both coming out of a bad (almost-)relationship just before the holidays, and do a house swap between Diaz's mansion in LA and Winslett's cottage in rural England to get away from their respective lives. Soon, both meet someone interesting and new perspectives open up, and eventually new love, in the form of Jude Law and Jack Black.
It's bad. This was listed as a romantic comedy, but there is barely any comedy to speak off (despite Jack Black's presence even), and the romance is so obvious that the only real drama is some practical stuff (that actually doesn't even really get resolved, just postponed). Romantic feelgood movie is probably a more accurate description. The romance, though, is kinda pathetic in Winslett's story and blindingly obvious in Diaz's - to the point where my frame of reference for most of the film (it gets better in the final third) was Harlequin/Hallmark movies.
American Sniper. It's kind of a weird film. It's well filmed and acted (nothing extraordinary, but solid as usual from directer Clint Eastwood and main guy Bradley Cooper), but I thought the narrative was severely lacking, in two ways that I probably have to spoiler to discuss.
First, it seems that the film wants to show how war damages the fighers mentally, but you get very little of that. You would need to see much more of Kyle back home to see how it affects him and his family. Instead, you mostly see him being this awesome soldier in Iraq, while the interludes back home in the US are so short that there isn't really time to develop the psychological angle at all. We just have to get it all from his wife (Sienna Miller) telling him that he isn't really there with them. And poof, we're back in Iraq and he's killing people again. I started making fun of it halfway through the film, and could predict exactly when we were switching back to an Iraq scene. There is just no depth or credibility to it at all.
This perspective is even worse at the end, cause going home permanently should be where the PTSD really comes out - but it doesn't, cause we see Kyle sulking a bit and hear the war in his head in front of a switched-off tv, and then get healed instantly once he starts helping other vets. (It may not have been instant in actual time, but given we jump from brief scene to brief scene in a matter of minutes, it's instant for me as a watcher.)
The second issue, and tied in with my previous paragraph, is that there is virtually no dramatic arch. In a normal film story, there is some kind of tension or issue, or whatever sort of drama. But not here. The guy goes to war and becomes a legend. He loses a few friends, but he avenges them. He is missed back home, but when he returns permanently, he overcomes his PTSD and becomes a beloved father again. And then he's killed suddenly. I know that's more or less what actually happened to Kyle, but it's just lame for a film. From a dramatic point of view, you'd expect the PTSD to become a real issue, or that he is killed in the war he can't get away from anymore, or something more dramatic with his fellow soldiers, or whatever else that actually produces a dramatic arch. But there's none of that. Everything the film builds towards falls apart by Kyle just becoming normal again (very quickly, as I mentioned above) - and then he randomly gets killed in an unrelated event (at least in the film there's no explanation).
So when the film was done, I was basically left stunned. Really, is that the ending? How is this a film? Why isn't it just a documentary or other kind of hommage? Why was this film praised so much? I guess I can get the feelgood factor for Americans that like to see their war heroes, but for anyone else...?
Also, I read that this movie depicts the messiness of the Iraq War, but does it really? We get nothing about the Iraqis, nothing about the intentions and failures of the occupying forces, next to nothing about anyone's doubts (there's a brief discussion once, but Kyle isn't the doubting kind). The insurgents, too, are just portrayed as cannon fodder, apart from the Butcher and the Sniper, who were more or less invented (at least in this specific form) to give Kyle some semblance of specific motivation in his actions. (I think I read that Spielberg wrote those into the plot. I think he might have made a very different film if he had directed it.)
So yeah, a pretty good film - until the last half hour, which made me wonder why I had been watching any of this.
American Sniper. It's kind of a weird film. It's well filmed and acted (nothing extraordinary, but solid as usual from directer Clint Eastwood and main guy Bradley Cooper), but I thought the narrative was severely lacking, in two ways that I probably have to spoiler to discuss.
First, it seems that the film wants to show how war damages the fighers mentally, but you get very little of that. You would need to see much more of Kyle back home to see how it affects him and his family. Instead, you mostly see him being this awesome soldier in Iraq, while the interludes back home in the US are so short that there isn't really time to develop the psychological angle at all. We just have to get it all from his wife (Sienna Miller) telling him that he isn't really there with them. And poof, we're back in Iraq and he's killing people again. I started making fun of it halfway through the film, and could predict exactly when we were switching back to an Iraq scene. There is just no depth or credibility to it at all.
This perspective is even worse at the end, cause going home permanently should be where the PTSD really comes out - but it doesn't, cause we see Kyle sulking a bit and hear the war in his head in front of a switched-off tv, and then get healed instantly once he starts helping other vets. (It may not have been instant in actual time, but given we jump from brief scene to brief scene in a matter of minutes, it's instant for me as a watcher.)
The second issue, and tied in with my previous paragraph, is that there is virtually no dramatic arch. In a normal film story, there is some kind of tension or issue, or whatever sort of drama. But not here. The guy goes to war and becomes a legend. He loses a few friends, but he avenges them. He is missed back home, but when he returns permanently, he overcomes his PTSD and becomes a beloved father again. And then he's killed suddenly. I know that's more or less what actually happened to Kyle, but it's just lame for a film. From a dramatic point of view, you'd expect the PTSD to become a real issue, or that he is killed in the war he can't get away from anymore, or something more dramatic with his fellow soldiers, or whatever else that actually produces a dramatic arch. But there's none of that. Everything the film builds towards falls apart by Kyle just becoming normal again (very quickly, as I mentioned above) - and then he randomly gets killed in an unrelated event (at least in the film there's no explanation).
So when the film was done, I was basically left stunned. Really, is that the ending? How is this a film? Why isn't it just a documentary or other kind of hommage? Why was this film praised so much? I guess I can get the feelgood factor for Americans that like to see their war heroes, but for anyone else...?
Also, I read that this movie depicts the messiness of the Iraq War, but does it really? We get nothing about the Iraqis, nothing about the intentions and failures of the occupying forces, next to nothing about anyone's doubts (there's a brief discussion once, but Kyle isn't the doubting kind). The insurgents, too, are just portrayed as cannon fodder, apart from the Butcher and the Sniper, who were more or less invented (at least in this specific form) to give Kyle some semblance of specific motivation in his actions. (I think I read that Spielberg wrote those into the plot. I think he might have made a very different film if he had directed it.)
So yeah, a pretty good film - until the last half hour, which made me wonder why I had been watching any of this.
Yeah, I read your comment. I read the critical reception bit on Wikipedia, and I was amazed how posive many people were, including what are supposed to be high-ranking film critics. This is the positive section (there is some criticism, too,, actually):
Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter called the film "A taut, vivid and sad account of the brief life of the most accomplished marksman in American military annals." Justin Chang of Variety gave the film a positive review, saying: "an excellent performance from a bulked-up Bradley Cooper, this harrowing and intimate character study offers fairly blunt insights into the physical and psychological toll exacted on the front lines". David Denby of The New Yorker gave the film a positive review, saying "Both a devastating war movie and a devastating antiwar movie, a subdued celebration of a warrior's skill and a sorrowful lament over his alienation and misery." Keith Phipps of The Dissolve wrote that the film, while well made, missed a chance to explore the toll that such service exacts on soldiers. Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C+, saying "The film's just a repetition of context-free combat missions and one-dimensional targets." Elizabeth Weitzman of New York Daily News gave the film four out of five stars, saying "The best movies are ever-shifting, intelligent and open-hearted enough to expand alongside an audience. American Sniper ... is built on this foundation of uncommon compassion." Kyle Smith of the New York Post gave the film four out of four stars, saying "After 40 years of Hollywood counterpropaganda telling us war is necessarily corrupting and malign, ... American Sniper nobly presents the case for the other side."
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "Bradley Cooper, as Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, and director Eastwood salute Kyle's patriotism best by not denying its toll. Their targets are clearly in sight, and their aim is true." Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of The A.V. Club gave the film a B, saying "American Sniper is imperfect and at times a little corny, but also ambivalent and complicated in ways that are uniquely Eastwoodian." James Berardinelli of ReelViews gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, saying "American Sniper lifts director Clint Eastwood out of the doldrums that have plagued his last few films." Rafer Guzman of Newsday gave the film three out of four stars, saying "Cooper nails the role of an American killing machine in Clint Eastwood's clear-eyed look at the Iraq War." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times gave the film a positive review, saying "Eastwood's impeccably crafted action sequences so catch us up in the chaos of combat we are almost not aware that we're watching a film at all." Claudia Puig of USA Today gave the film three out of four stars, saying "It's clearly Cooper's show. Substantially bulked up and affecting a believable Texas drawl, Cooper embodies Kyle's confidence, intensity and vulnerability." Joshua Rothkopf of Time Out New York gave the film four out of five stars, saying "Only Clint Eastwood could make a movie about an Iraq War veteran and infuse it with doubts, mission anxiety and ruination." Dean Obeidallah praised the film, saying "His focus was not on whom we were fighting, but the unbearably high price Americans pay for waging war regardless of its target. The film is a cautionary tale for Americans about why we must avoid war. It is not a celebration of waging it."
Most of this I just don't get at all. Where is the character study? Where does this display the negative side of the US's experience of the Iraq War? (let alone any aspect of the Iraqi experience) How is this devestating, or showing any (lasting) alienation, misery, or vulenarability on Kyle's part? Where is the compassion? (I have no idea how someone could think of that word in this context!) I guess it's no surprise that these are all Americans, and I figured it's 100% telling that the New York Post reviewer (final comment of the first paragraph) saw this as a great film and a case for the noble side of war.
In any case, that made me look up what others had said about the movie, and here on the forum the overall opinion was a lot more negative.
