Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies  (Read 20674 times)

Description: Paterson

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline muzzington

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,471
  • Unbesiegbar
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #750 on: July 03, 2018, 10:12:50 PM »
I don't comment on these but I do read them, continue the great work (and consider watching Snatch too).

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #751 on: July 04, 2018, 05:23:55 AM »
I don't comment on these but I do read them, continue the great work (and consider watching Snatch too).

It's definitely on the list, but I'm trying hard not to completely blow through that entire genre. Will probably take a while.
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #752 on: July 04, 2018, 06:21:34 PM »


Sexy Beast (2000), directed by Jonathan Glazer

I'm trying to think of a way to tackle this review, because I did just state that I do my best to never watch two genre films in short succession. Particularly I was referring to British crime dramas, which are about tough cunts and what tough cunts do. The problem is, this was expiring on Starz in two days, so I had to watch it as soon as possible. I also had company today, So, with that in mind, I needed to watch something short and today was the day. I need to address this film in my own way, and there's only one way in which I can do so. Some of the things here are totally surreal, others are entirely suspected given who's in the film, but I never would have expected some of the parts in this to exist at all. Yet, much like in other films, they exist, and I shouldn't be surprised by these kinds of things anymore. If Part 8 of the third season of Twin Peaks exists, and if I've watched it, why the hell am I surprised? I really don't know anymore. Speaking of that show, I need to finish it ASAP. The thing I am talking about is nowhere near as interesting as The Woodsman, though.

Here's how Sexy Beast works. It is neither sexy nor beastly, it is a reference to Gal (Ray Winstone), a retired gangster of some sort. Gal has moved to Spain with his wife DeeDee (Amanda Redman), and he has two friends there, Aitch (Cavan Kendall) and Jackie (Julianne White), who are also married. In Spain, it's a nice life, even though it's absolutely boiling hot. I've always wanted to go to Andalusia, but as presented in this film it seems like the kind of place that would certainly give someone skin cancer. I'm not one to talk as I live in one of those locations myself. Anyway, one of our first scenes features a boulder falling from a hill, going over Gal's head, and landing in the pool. Afterwards, we meet Gal's friends, and he subsequently goes on a rabbit hunt with a boy who works around the house, Enrique (Alvaro Monje). After the hunt, Gal returns and has a dream of a demonic, man-sized rabbit pointing a gun at him. This is not the only dream scene, and while I usually love surrealist dream scenes, I find these to be the weakest part of the film by some distance. They are completely unnecessary.

After the hunt and dream, Aitch and Jackie receive a phone call from Don Logan (Ben Kingsley), and in a genre full of tough cunts, this might be the toughest and craziest cunt of them all. Logan is bad news, particularly for a retiree like Gal, who knows bad stuff comes along with Logan. There's only a few reasons Logan could possibly call, and even fewer that Logan would fly to Spain to meet with him. Logan wants Gal to come out of retirement, and his intention is to rob a bank in London. Teddy Bass (Ian McShane) is a huge crime boss of some kind, but in any case, he's learned that there's a vault that presents minimal risk to rob. It's also extremely secure. Of course, in any kind of movie, that means someone has to rob it, it's a huge target that anyone would like to claim, and there has to be real quality stuff inside of there. Bass decides to enter the vault and make his own deposit, but unbeknownst to the manager, it's simply a pack of cigarettes. Now, as for Logan, it's difficult for me to decide what I want to talk about here, but I think I've zeroed in on two things. First, this guy banged Jackie, and it goes without saying that when your best friend Aitch is a weak old man, it's best he doesn't find out. Secondly, and related to why Gal wouldn't want Aitch to know, this guy Don Logan, is fucking extremely dangerous and volatile. Didn't I already say that though?

Ben Kingsley's performance here is something I simply didn't think he was capable of, when I think of him, I think of him playing so many roles where he is passive and not even remotely aggressive. I'm not only thinking of Ghandi, there's definitely far more than just that. His role playing himself and having to deal with Christopher Moltisanti might take the cake for awkward performances. Here, he's a whirlwind, something capable of fucking up anything simply by coming into contact with it. Don Logan is a man who talks to himself constantly, who spits out profanity like it's going out of style, who's always a threat to beat someone up or kill them, and he'll say anything horrible about someone else in order to rile them up. Just give Don Logan a reason and he'll put you out, get rid of you for good. I had no idea Kingsley was remotely capable of this, it's a role that is seemingly beyond him, so there's no surprise at all that he got nominated for an Oscar. As far as One Last Job films go, well this isn't one of the best, but it does feature a fantastic performance.

As far as everything else goes, the film is on the very high end of solid, even good, but I can't make the leap to this being a great film. It's not really a heist film either, that portion of the film is quite short in comparison to the rest. That's quite alright though, I actually prefer to see something different, something that's largely about getting someone to take part in the heist rather than their part IN the heist. Some of the small details of the plot are excellent. We know that Gal isn't flush with money even though he lives in a Spanish villa, he simply doesn't want to do the job. We know that his wife was a porn star before he married her, yet he seems to not care about this part. We also know that Teddy got ass fucked by the bank manager in order to get the details of the bank vault. Or was it the other way around? It didn't look like it. Anyway, the details are important, they create a good film. However, there's one thing I simply can't shake. It's the fact that if Logan acted like that all the time, he would have been murdered a long time before reaching that age. When Johnny Depp portrayed Whitey Bulger, the material did not allow for him to act like Bulger was a crazed maniac, it's hard for someone to live very long acting like that. Perhaps this is a case where fiction creates something more entertaining than reality. Because, for the most part, it really is.

I've already run through my complete list of positives and negatives, but after I watch Snatch, which will definitely be some time in the next few months, I have no idea where else this genre goes. I may have basically seen the lot, which would be a bit shit, but I bet that if I went down Ray Winstone's list of performances, there has to be something else worth watching. But, what if there isn't? What will I be left to do? There would be a big gap in my life, one I do not want at all, one that would remain unfilled for ages. Will I be left to watch more Jason Statham movies? More foreign films? Explore different genres? The answer to all those questions is yes, but maybe I'm just really wrong, maybe there's a lot more of these to put in my life, and there's one really simple fact, that nobody will stop making these. This genre will become one for nostalgia, one someone will decide has to live on, and subsequently more of these films will be made even if taking place in different time periods. Or at least I hope so. Still, I'm glad that I saw these in such relatively short succession. I should also note that Sexy Beast is largely similar although doesn't feature the super intense, quick pacing that any of the other British crime dramas I've reviewed feature.

7.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #753 on: July 05, 2018, 06:31:58 PM »


Unbreakable (2000), directed by M. Night Shyamalan

I have to watch this and Split with basically no space between them, but I'm able to shove at least a week in. Anyway, this is yet another movie that was on my December list, another that I couldn't watch, but I'm finally able to do so now. I have no particular affinity or preference to watch those movies, they just come back up as they expire on other streaming sites. Anyway, I know this had good reviews, but this is a superhero movie made 18 years ago. I had no idea what was going to be in it, nor what it was going to be about. I'm sure I've been told before, I simply didn't remember, it wasn't important enough for me to retain the information. Anyway, nothing about this seemed like a superhero film, I couldn't imagine Bruce Willis or Samuel L. Jackson playing someone with superpowers, it's just too weird to me. I'm also surprised by how big the budget for this was, but I suppose it was time for everyone to get paid in those days. The content of the film does not seem like something that required a massive budget. In any case, this is a more practical and realistsic superhero film. It is a good effort at making something in an era before CGI became so common.

The film starts in 1961, with a woman having given birth in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the child is born with osteogensis imperfecta, which means that his bones are fragile and prone to breaking. His name is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), and he is born with broken legs and arms, which sounds terrible for a mother to learn about her newborn. Over the course of the film, we learn that Elijah has suffered more bone breaks than sounds humanly possible, yet he is still able to manuever with a cane, at least for a while. After the birth flashback, we move forward to the present, with David Dunn (Bruce Willis) riding a train. David is a guy with problems, specifically marital problems. He and his wife Audrey (Robin Wright) don't really speak to each other, they also live in separate rooms. Their son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark) doesn't really comment on this, which is something I'll address later. Anyway, David is riding back from a job interview in New York, but the viewer doesn't realize until the conclusion of his opening scene why he's done so, or the circumstances of his life. While riding home, there's a huge accident, a train derailment. Somehow, David is unharmed. He is the only survivor, he is uninjured, 131 people are dead.

Afterwards, David undergoes a period of self-examination. You could call it survivor's guilt, I suppose, but it isn't really presented in such fashion. After a memorial for the dead passengers, someone has left a card on his truck, which presents a very simple question. Have you ever been sick? David finds out where the card came from, but not before more self-examination. He asks Audrey if he's been sick, she doesn't think so. He can't remember being sick, and he seems to have a lot of repressed memories, which is also something I'm going to address later. David continues with his journey upon not finding answers, and goes to the store the card came from. He learns that it was Elijah who sent him the card, and Elijah presents him with a theory. If there's someone like him with his problems, there has to be a person out there with the inverse of those problems. He's read a lot of comic books and has been convinced of this, nothing is going to change his mind. He is curious as to whether or not David fits his criteria, and poses questions to him. Meanwhile, with David having brought his son to this interview of sorts, Joseph starts believing that his dad possesses the traits of a superhero.

I need to address the negatives of this story before I forget, because they are eating away at me the longer I think about them. The way that David and his family can't remember details of his life sounds completely ridiculous to me, I can't imagine having my head that far in the sand about people I live with and love. It's actually completely nonsensical and a massive negative point in an otherwise good movie. Similar to that, Joseph's lack of commenting or behavior related to his mom and dad's distance is a bit odd as well. I'm super confused by both things and have a hard time believing this portrayal of a family unit. Bruce Willis has a very strong performance here, so I'm not talking about that aspect, but the screenplay pertaining to this aspect sounds foreign. I can't believe that Shyamalan doesn't see this either. Now, in all honesty, those are really the only negative points I have. Big as they are, and there's another scene that plays out via reflection off a television, which I thought was simply bad direction. I had a hard time paying attention to it even though it was clearly very important.

Now, the positive, of course, is the aspects related to its comic book story. This is an origin story that is up there with the best, even though the film makes serious errors with David's family life. Regardless of that, his own discovery of his gift and eventual usage of it is excellent viewing. It is no surprise at all that tons of superhero movies would come out after this one, it's simply what people wanted to see. The viewer decides what's worth making, after all. I thought the ending was also very good. Without spoiling, anyway. That's really all I can say about it. Unbreakable is largely about David realizing he has gifts, but he wouldn't know this without Elijah prodding and provoking him into doing something about it. It's a good story, and there's been plenty since, so I'm not sure exactly where it ranks. I don't try to do that, it's not my thing to throw out rankings for everything. But, compare it to what scores I've given other origin stories, and there you go. That's really all you can do I guess, I'm not going to do it.

I would be making a huge mistake to review a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not talk about the twist in it, so I'm going to spoiler tag the rest of this paragraph and therefore the rest of the review.

Spoiler: show

I cannot believe that he actually had the balls to go with this ending, with Elijah being revealed as the single greatest terrorist in the history of mankind. I'm going to admit, I didn't really see it coming, but there's so much leading to it in hindsight that is giving away the reality of the situation. Over and over again Elijah says that they are on opposite ends of the curve, that they are completely different, but to run with that the entire way was an inspired decision. I'm sure people have mixed feelings about it, I know that a lot of people here probably think the twist was awful, but I don't. I think it's ingenious to make people think they did something wrong by enjoying Elijah's character, at least if you care that much about a movie anyway. Unfortunately, this twist led Shyamalan to think he could do anything with a movie, and therefore he did exactly that. It stands to reason that Elijah wouldn't get caught, but it's totally ridiculous. I liked it. I thought there was one aspect of the ending that falls far short though, it was the text overlay after Elijah's reveal. Like, seriously. Are you fucking serious to not play things out to their conclusion?


As stated, those negatives are really big, and I rated the film as such.

6.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Online L'AZentat

  • Freie Kultur Kreuzfeuer
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,695
  • HURRAY YANKEE BLUE JEANS
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #754 on: July 06, 2018, 01:16:51 AM »
Granted I haven't watched it in over a decade, but I don't remember the family dynamic being all that awkward. I'll have to check it out again, but your brief analysis seems a little off to me (maybe because most of my teens saw my parents have a similar sense of detachment?).
Maybe the real deep state was the friends we made along the way.

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #755 on: July 06, 2018, 04:17:11 AM »
Granted I haven't watched it in over a decade, but I don't remember the family dynamic being all that awkward. I'll have to check it out again, but your brief analysis seems a little off to me (maybe because most of my teens saw my parents have a similar sense of detachment?).

It's more that we don't learn anything about their problems. It's strange.
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #756 on: July 08, 2018, 08:49:35 AM »


Virunga (2014), directed by Orlando von Einsiedel

No reason to beat around the bush, I'm going to get straight to the facts as I try to do with every documentary. Shot in cinema-verite fashion, Virunga is the second film related to the Congo that I've watched in the span of a month. The first, of course, was related to the exploitation of the Congo. So is the second! Virunga tells the story of four people, although it does so to various extents and requires you to take the entire picture as a whole. I will address the four people one by one, but it's ultimately not just those people that this is really about, it's about the entire region. There are also two overarching plot points affecting the entire region. It is difficult for me to decide what I should talk about first, the people or the plot points, but then again, they all go together. The events of this film took place in 2012, during a very turbulent time for North Kivu, which is in East Congo. Virunga, on the other hand, is the name for the national park in that province. I felt obligated to clarify that early on and get it out of the way.

Anyway, now that I've gotten those pre-details out of the way, let's talk about the film. The director and his crew traveled to Virunga National Park to make a positive documentary film about the situation there after the Congo Wars, to promote tourism, and all that. Basically a propaganda film. Instead, upon arrival, the situation had changed entirely. The M23 Rebellion began soon after arrival, and all the events I will mention here are intertwined with each other. I may not be capable of illustrating how exactly things worked out. The United Nations subsequently learned that Rwanda created this rebel group and supplied it, tiny as Rwanda is. Anyway, the M23 rebels wanted to take their country back, and had taken control of Goma, a city with a population of one million. The Congo is just a place that is always going to have these kinds of problems, because of the amount of natural resources in the country. Speaking of those, there is a possibility for oil in the aforementioned Virunga National Park. The Congolese government had given SOCO International, a British oil company, the rights to explore for oil and potentially draw it out of the park. This is a violation of international law as stated in the film, because Virunga is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Fucking with conservational parks is a serious no-no.

Now, to tie things back to the four people, and I realize I'm doing a poor job, here's the situation at the park. The film focuses on gorilla caretaker Andre Bauma, who is tasked with ensuring that four sickly gorillas without parents progress through their life until it is time for them to go back into the forest. Rodrigue Katembo is a central warden who decides to go undercover to prove that there is some serious corruption going on, and his videos are key to tying the story together. He knows people affiliated with SOCO, which leads to quite a few crazy revelations. There's also Melanie Gouby, an investigative journalist who meets with numerous SOCO employees and rebels, because she's putting together a story on the region. Some of these people are so dumb that they just tell her everything they think, including their beliefs that European countries should recolonize the region. Simply doing it via private corporations, they believe, is not quite enough. What we learn from these meetings is that the rebellion and SOCO may be tied together, and they have one common enemy, our last subject, Emmanuel de Merode. de Merode is a member of the Belgian royal family, and he has the job of protecting Virunga as its chief warden. His job is not an easy one, he is tasked with many issues, including keeping the park secure from poachers who will kill the parents of young gorillas and try to sell the babies. The thing is, the rebels and employees of SOCO seem to want him dead. After this was filmed and two days prior to its release, some men actually tried to kill de Merode and shot him numerous times. He survived.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure I did a shit job summarizing some of the events here, but this film is intertwined to a crazy extent, the kind which only an expert director could pull off. This was the director's first documentary feature, but he did a hell of a job ensuring the story was cohesive with all this information he had compiled. A hell of a job is what it was, I cannot describe how confusing the events could possibly have been. Just look at my account of it. Only a great Hollywood screenplay comes close to the levels of corporate malfeasance, stories of violence, overall corruption, and noble behavior in its heroes that is shown in this film. It's incredible. Just because Europe stopped government colonization of Africa doesn't mean that companies have stopped trying to do so, and they will do whatever it takes in order to pull things off. Some time after this film was released, SOCO aannounced that they pulled out of the region. But did they really? Only another documentary could answer that.

If you haven't read about the region yourself, you could never foresee the ending of this documentary. It is unbelievably shocking. The events of real life conspired to take a very good documentary and turn it into an amazing one, but the editing of the events in the film prior to that is nothing but perfection. SOCO had denied their role in this conflict, and denied that they attempted to pay bribes to park rangers, or that their employees believe these things about the Congo, but the damage has been done. This region of the world is intriguing, but it's also haunting to see the damage that humans can do to one another. In the aftermath of the events near the end, a refugee camp that housed 60,000 was destroyed, with no knowledge of where the refugees wound up scattering to. This film is certainly not for the faint of heart. There is a scene where de Merode and his team of rangers come across a gigantic elephant carcass. I happened to watch this scene when I was eating and I could barely finish my food. What we see is that there are things affected beyond the military forces that engage in these conflicts, that they happen for more reasons than simple territorial or ethnic conflicts, there is always something extra to them, usually something that lies under the ground.

I will never claim that I'm going to quit using oil, install solar power and all that stuff, I simply can't afford it. However, the natural resources in the Congo have effectively irreparably destroyed their country, and we are not blameless by sheer inability to stop using these things.

https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/

This stuff is real, it is in all our electronics, these resources allow us to use them while the countries that house them are pillaged in the name of profit. It is to some extent our fault, it is worse that we have not demanded the manufacturing and creation of synthetic resources to replace them. It is a failure of the human race that we do not prioritize these development. Our inability to do so has led to  rapes, children without parents, a massive refugee crisis, starvation, instability, and worst of all millions of deaths. This film does not examine our role in these events beyond a complaint from a Congolese that their land is being ruined so that people can play Playstation or use a computer, yet most of what I take away from the documentary is that we are the ones who have done this. But, if you don't see that we all share a part in this stuff, you're very naive and willfully stupid. It is a horrible feeling to know that my use of these things leads to such problems. Our complicity leads to companies like SOCO International doing whatever it takes to mine the resources that they want to make money off of. If that means funding a few rebels and killing a whole species of monkeys, they really don't care. They believe that far worse things should be done, recolonization and destruction of the native population is their ultimate end game.

8.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #757 on: July 08, 2018, 06:22:43 PM »
enough spoilers to ruin a viewing. movie should be watched blind.



The Lobster (2015), directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

There is really no way to describe this as anything other than the strangest film I have seen in a month. I would go further back, but Get Out was something I saw in June, I can't really say that it wasn't in the same category of mindfuck that The Lobster was. I haven't seen any of Lanthimos other work, and the stuff that came before this was someething I didn't have time to space out properly prior to checking this out. I think it'll be expiring from Amazon Prime soon, I recommend watching this before it does. This is a film that can be described as very fitting for our time. I will need the whole review to describe why that is, and I like that this is an absurdist film that takes the time to explain why things are the way they are. This is also a solid social critique of the way in which we create dating matches with each other, as well as completely deadpan in the way it plays out. There is nothing I can say that isn't better described by someone else, but it seems that people like my descriptions. I think you guys really need to watch this before you have to pay extra to do so, and even if you do, it's worth the rental.

Immediately after his wife leaves him for another man, David (Colin Farrell) is escorted to a hotel. The viewer, should they not read this review nor the description of the movie prior to watching it, will have no idea what's coming next. Here's the concept, and if you don't want to know, turn around and just watch the fucking film. David checks into the hotel and is unsure how to actually check in, as a heterosexual or homosexual, all based upon one experience while in college. There is no option to check in as bisexual, and this scene lets you know that what you're going to be watching is out there on some other planet. The society is void of emotion and doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. The hotel manager (Olivia Colman) tells David and the viewer exactly what's up. David has 45 days to find a partner before being transformed into an animal, like David's brother, who is now a dog that David has brought with him to the hotel. David decides that he would prefer to be turned into a lobster if things don't go well, and he also decides that he's heterosexual. Upon arrival, David makes some friends, Lisping Man (John C. Reilly) and Limping Man (Ben Whishaw). You learn their names later, but who cares about that.

As the film progresses, we learn that the slate of potential partners in this hotel is super bleak. There's Nosebleed Woman (Jessica Barden), who seems normal besides all that. There's Biscuit Woman (Ashley Jensen), who says a few lines that seemed beyond all the things I could have imagined she would ever say. That's how it goes though, and her character shows you exactly how this society is. If she can't find a partner she's going to kill herself instead of becoming an animal. There's Heartless Woman (Angeliki Papoulia), who seems like a quirky bitch, until you see a scene that is completely stomach turning and horrible. It's also a necessary scene, one that can't be removed, because the viewer needs to know that this person is truly a heartless bitch. So, it's pretty bleak for our guy David. In addition to that, the hotel has rules. There is no masturbating, someone comes around every morning to sexually stimulate the guest by doing a hilarious lap dance, and there's propaganda that talks about how virtuous and great partnership is. Lastly, residents are taken out to the forest to hunt and tranquilize people who live out in the forest. These people are called "loners."

I have only set up the situation without revealing any of the events, that is all I could do. This really should be watched blind, because there is no amount of summarization that can really describe this situation or the presentation of this story. Everything here is completely deadpan, it is one of the most ridiculous movies I have watched. I also neglected to mention a few ground rules, but I do have to mention one of them, there's supposed to be no way to fake your way into a relationship in this movie. Any bad matches are cast aside and things start all over. This is a film that should have been up for numerous Oscars, instead it was merely nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Merely nominated is a travesty in the sense that it should have won, there is no way that Manchester by the Sea had a better screenplay. It is simply impossible due to its content matter being incomparable to the world created in this film. There are countless absurd scenes, some of which are brutal in their callous presentation of the events. The camera also lingers on these things and serves to feature how fucked up this kind of world actually would be. There are also numerous funny scenes, one of which features a little girl getting kicked in the leg. It's definitely one of my favorites.

This is a film that may have leaped over many others into being one of my actual favorites, something which is extremely difficult to do. Recently it was only Heat which made the jump into this category. I would classify my favorites as anything rated 9.5 or 10, but there certainly are exceptions, those being films I wouldn't call my favorites because they were so haunting. But, you know, this isn't really one of those. There are three amazing performances which I have deliberately not named, but this is a film where every single actor plays their part and carries their weight in order to create something special. To deliver some of these lines deadpan is a heroic achievement. There are also random scenes where animals show up, those are fantastic as well. It's a Wes Anderson movie where everything he usually does as a quirky trademark gets blown out by something horrific, something terrifying, and it is impossible not to laugh at the vast majority of these things. A certain sense of humor is required, for example I don't think my mom could handle this at all. Your mileage may vary as well. This is also a movie of two distinct halves, the second of which I haven't said a single word about. It is also fantastic, and I'm not sure if I'm in the minority in believing that's the case. The Lobster's critiques of matchmaking, perceptions that outside people have of your love, and expectations on humans to find a partner I thought were all quite bang on.

What this film did was tell me that I needed to get back to the movie theater, so sometime in August I'm going to subscribe to that AMC thing where you can see 12 movies a month. I probably won't see all 12 every month, but I should subscribe. So, once I do that, I'll make another thread or a website containing reviews of movies that are...IN THEATERS. I just shouldn't wait to see movies like these and hear about how good they are, I need to create the experience for myself and learn about whether or not they're worth my time all on my own, without any other input. In watching this, I really did learn why people actually bother to head into the theater and check things out. Obviously that's a gigantic plus point in favor of this film, not a single other one I've viewed has done this to me. I have tried not to spoil too much about The Lobster, but it's really hard to do that. The last things I wanted to say were related to the cinematography in this film. The location and cinematography simultaneously allows for both bleak and beautiful shots, this was filmed in Ireland and naturally there's lots of green. There's also lots of clouds dependent upon the day, and it is quite gray at times. The combination of these things works two-fold. There is one particular scene I'm thinking of where it is gray and bleak until a character walks into a different location. It is symbolic of something else in this film, but over the course of the shot, what they're walking on becomes green, the background does as well, and while you notice these things, for a while you're uncertain as to how they came to be.

I have now written an amazing amount of material related to this film, far more than I usually do. The overall point I'm trying to make is that Lanthimos is clearly a very thought provoking director, his entire intention is to be provocative and make you think. Simply, if you can't turn on your brain for this film, yours may not work. It is clear that the standards of this society, and perhaps even of our own, are totally ludicrous. If there are any weaknesses in this film, I found the ending shot a bit lacking, and the director isn't keen do anything particularly rebellious with his concept. The world is what it is, and that is that. The premise sounds as if it's something that could get tiresome inside of twenty minutes, except it really isn't. The hits keep on coming, and so do the laughs. For the record, if asked to choose an animal to turn into, I don't think I could. I would do what another guest did, and painfully take my own life. After all, that's the only way to do so that I can think of as presented in this film anyway. That isn't a spoiler either, once she says she's going to do it, you know damn well that's what's going to happen. So again, your mileage may vary with this one.

9.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Brooklyn Cienfuegos

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15,891
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #758 on: July 09, 2018, 03:01:57 AM »
agree with a lot, especially the awards part, but we all know those are bullshit (most recent example is the lack of nominations for “beasts of no nation”). This movie also proves how good Colin Farrell is. I think a lot of people here would enjoy this type of humor.

If you liked this movie, I recommend “Killing of the Sacred Deer.” Same director, not as humorous but also absurd and the deadpan deliveries. Farrell also stars in that.

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #759 on: July 09, 2018, 07:40:00 AM »
agree with a lot, especially the awards part, but we all know those are bullshit (most recent example is the lack of nominations for “beasts of no nation”). This movie also proves how good Colin Farrell is. I think a lot of people here would enjoy this type of humor.

If you liked this movie, I recommend “Killing of the Sacred Deer.” Same director, not as humorous but also absurd and the deadpan deliveries. Farrell also stars in that.

I was surprised by how much weight Farrell gained for the role. But yeah, awards are bullshit. I am going to watch the other film sometime in the future too.
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,028
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #760 on: July 09, 2018, 07:54:28 AM »
Killing of the Sacred Deer left me feeling weirder about things for a week afterwards and still sticks with me and breaking into my thoughts more often than The Lobster did even though I liked the latter movie a little bit more.

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #761 on: July 09, 2018, 06:21:53 PM »


Split (2017), directed by M. Night Shyamalan

I didn't want to watch this so soon after Unbreakable and would have preferred to wait a few days, but I was having a hell of a time deciding what kind of movie should follow my last one. This is a movie best not left spoiled for you, it is also perhaps the one in which Shyamalan shows the most restraint in pulling off his twist. I am also surprised by the ability of Shyamalan to bring this in on a low budget considering the way I thought Unbreakable was quite wasteful with its budget, and it shows that big name actors are not needed to pull off a cohesive story. It is too bad that I saw the twist beforehand, which is yet another reason I intend to start going to see these films for myself before they can be ruined for me, but I also thought the twist was so good that in some way it didn't matter that I knew about it. As I have said about other films, such as Cloverfield, that is a hell of a long time to wait for a sequel to its original story. It's a surprisingly simple film to describe as well, which is quite stunning.

Casey Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a troubled young woman, who is out at dinner with her classmates. It is seemingly a birthday party. Her ride has broken down and and won't be there on time, so she hitches a ride with the father of Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), the girl in her class who was having a birthday party. Along comes Marcia (Jessica Sula) as well, she's Claire's friend. Casey is a complete outcast and is only there because people felt too bad not to invite her. Unfortunately for her, it's not great that she came to the party. While in the parking lot, Claire's father is attacked by a man (James McAvoy), and the three girls are taken to a secluded location, seemingly to be locked in a bunker. Obviously, the girls are freaking out, and they don't know what to do, then the man comes back in there and tries to rape one of them. Casey tells Marcia to pee on herself, which she does, and subsequently the rape attempt ends with Marcia being thrown back into their collective cell. Over the course of the rest of the movie, we learn that Casey's uncle has been molesting her, which sounds like quite strong material for something rated PG-13.

What we learn after the rape attempt is something major, and contrary to many people I didn't find any of this stuff funny. See, the man has dissociative identity disorder. His real name is Kevin, and he has 23 dominant personalities. They're all weird in their own way, some of them are featured in the film and others aren't. His doctor, Dr. Fletcher (Betty Buckley) attempts to help Kevin with his disorder, and she's an expert on this whole thing. The way she sees it, and the way that Kevin has described this, is that one of Kevin's dominant personalities, Barry, is able to control which ones inhabit Kevin's body at any particular point. Some of these are really bad. Barry has made the decision that two of them are not allowed to take their turns anymore. Dennis, the personality who attempted to rape Marcia, is obviously very controlling and is a rapist. This could get Kevin/Barry locked away and he can't have that, obviously. Another, Patricia, is mega strange. The problem is that Dennis and Patricia have taken control and talked another personality, Hedwig, into becoming the new dominant personality and letting them have their way. Hedwig is the personality of a nine year old boy. Dennis and Patricia have done this because they worship a personality that has not yet manifested itself, it is called...THE BEAST.

So, with Unbreakable and Split, Shyamalan has done two things essential to creating a comic book universe of his own. First was the superhero origin, with him having a villain he immediately put away over the course of carrying out his first action. Second, in Split, we have the origin of a supervillain! I thought the latter was better than the former, but they're both two incredibly different kinds of films. The first was someone's discovery of themselves, this is basically a horror-thriller. Can't call it a full horror movie because it simply isn't, there's not enough blood and only one series of parts is truly scary, although the attempted rape is too. So, one series and one part. I am, as already stated, incredibly surprised by Shyamalan's restraint in not going overboard with twists and surprises. Everything is pretty well laid out early on in the film as a potential possiblity, things play out in a manner where one of those possibilities has been reached. It is, as stated, an incredibly simple film. It is also fantastic that Shyamalan decided to inhabit the world with other superhumans, just as Mr. Glass prediced would happen. I don't think this will ever advance beyond the state of there being a third film, but if so I'd be very interested in seeing how far this concept can go. The special effects of them are also such that this could be brought to premium television and not need a big effects budget.

Considering Claire and Marcia wind up locked away, this is effectively a movie with three strong performances. Obviously, McAvoy's takes the cake, I had no idea he was even remotely capable of this sort of performance. It's always nice to see something like that. He practically played eight or nine characters, that isn't something I see very often. I did think that the rationale for...one of the characters in this film not dying was actually quite weak, and that's pretty much where all my marks in the negative side are going to go to. Another negative is the character of Dr. Fletcher, who seemingly refuses to take action even though her patient is obviously manifesting a personality that is capable of violence and very sick behavior. The logic gap there is not entirely small This is still a strong film with a well thought out concept, and the tie-in feels like a throw away scene until you realize that it actually isn't, that it made complete and total sense in the context of Unbreakable. Bruce Willis has done very few things of value since that film, and probably won't try in Glass, but I still want to see it. It's the best chance for his career to ever take off again and have a resurgence.

Ultimately, this film is an achievement of sorts considering its small budget, tight storyline that doesn't waver from its objectives, and a superhuman performance from McAvoy. It is too bad that genre fare as this never receives the recognition it deserves, but this is a film much better than it should have been entirely based upon McAvoy's performance. There are plenty of actors who try to do these things and fail, and that's part of why I never review those movies, they never receive a similar spotlight for me to even know about them. This month I'm not reviewing very many weak movies, but that's more a factor of there being a lot of critically acclaimed films expiring at the end of July. So, I don't really have a choice here. It's also funny that of all the series I blow through in short order, it's really M. Night Shyamalan's series. Like, really? Not some Clint Eastwood shit, or even Pirates? Or the Conjuring series, or like, practically anything else? It's funny and all, but that's just how things work out sometime.

7/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,480
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #762 on: July 10, 2018, 02:26:51 AM »
I loved the post-credits scene, as I saw Split the first day it came out in theaters and had no clue or even tease that this was going to tie into Unbreakable (which I actually really enjoyed back in the day) so that was a huge mark out moment in a sense.

When is Glass supposed to be out? I think they are still filming it right now.

And I agree about this being Bruce's last big stand in a sense. We will see if he can pull it off.

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #763 on: July 10, 2018, 04:45:21 AM »
I loved the post-credits scene, as I saw Split the first day it came out in theaters and had no clue or even tease that this was going to tie into Unbreakable (which I actually really enjoyed back in the day) so that was a huge mark out moment in a sense.

When is Glass supposed to be out? I think they are still filming it right now.

And I agree about this being Bruce's last big stand in a sense. We will see if he can pull it off.

January 2019.
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,028
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #764 on: July 10, 2018, 08:51:22 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

Offline Baby Shoes

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,011
  • Baby Shoes
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #765 on: July 10, 2018, 11:32:12 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

I remember how hyped everyone was for The Village and it being somewhat dull.  Then he just died off with Lady in the Water and The Happening.  The latter is one I am sometimes curious to go back and re-watch but then I think of the movies from that period that I was okay with that I don't like at all now and assume outside the lawnmower laughs, it would be truly painful.
[img width=800

Quote
Fan: WHY CAN REY BEAT BIG GUYS BUT NOT KIDMAN
Kevin Nash: Kidman wears a wife beater

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #766 on: July 10, 2018, 06:36:59 PM »


Dawn of the Dead (2004), directed by Zack Snyder

If people don't know this already, I, much like everyone else, can't really handle Zack Snyder. This was Snyder's debut feature film, and I don't know how he got this job, but this came before he formed a lot of his really bad habits. That makes the film better than you might think based upon the name of the director who put this together, but I don't think this was absolutely amazing or anything like that. The funny part is, I did things in the reverse order that I'm sure most other people have done. What I mean by that is, basically everyone here has played Dead Rising, right? We know that Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead are really similar, and that Dead Rising rips off most of the things in this film and the original version of it. I have not seen the original film and have no idea what it's actually like, but I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point. It isn't going to be any time soon, though. But, in watching this, I was constantly reminded of Dead Rising, although that game is more ridiculous than this, because after all it's a fucking stupid video game.

A woman named Ana (Sarah Polley) finishes a long shift as a nurse, working overtime. When she comes home, she and her husband had a date night, so they don't watch the news. The next morning, a little girl Ana spoke to the previous night enters their bedroom. The girl kills her husband, and Ana is obviously freaked the fuck out. Ana tries to save him, but nothing she could do seemed to work. A very short time afterward, her husband reanimates as a zombie and attacks Ana. Ana tries to flee, she eventually crashes, and passes out. When he comes to, she encounters a group of people. Kenneth (Ving Rhames) is a police officer, but that shit is kind of irrelevant at this stage of society. Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his wife Luda (Inna Korobkina) are expecting a child, and there's Michael (Jake Weber), who has literally no backstory until near the end of the film. This is our troupe, they want to go to a fort that the government has stated people should go to, but unbeknownst to them until later, the fort went to shit and everyone there is dead. Seeing as they can't cut through Milwaukee, their immediate plan is to head into the mall right next to where they currently are.

Upon arriving at the mall, they are attaacked by a security guard, at which point they realize the threat they're under. This security guard was dead, but he was also a zombie, and dead doesn't matter anymore. After going upstairs on an elevator, they are met by three other security guards, these ones living, with their guns pointed right in the faces of our party. CJ (Michael Kelly) is their leader, and fuck yeah, my dude Doug Stamper is up in this motherfucker. The other two geeks are Terry (Kevin Zegers) and Bart (Michael Barry), and this film is really good about ensuring you don't know who, if anyone, will make it to its conclusion. On the roof, they see that there's another survivor, Andy, who is trapped in his gun store. Some time after that, a moving truck crashes into the fucking mall, and we are met with many newcomers. Some of those newcomers make us aware of the state of the world. If you've been bitten and die you turn into a zombie, it's pretty much as simple as that. There are hard decisions to be made, and there's some cool shit that happens as this film plays out.

The dad from Modern Family being in this movie was a hell of a surprise, I didn't know anything about that or anything else that happened here prior to watching it. I also did not know that these zombies were going to be of the running kind, and overall I think that's good. I'm sure that was one of many controversial changes from the original, but I liked this one. On the other hand, this is barely a horror movie by the standards of what I'd call one. Are there any good scares? No. Does any scene rely on suspense to get a reaction from the viewer? Also no. Does Zack Snyder do some of the bullshit he always does? Well, yes. He certainly does and it isn't my favorite thing at all. I'm not a big horror guy to begin with as everyone knows, but I would have preferred this be a horror movie. It's better in terms of creating a story that makes sense, characters that people care about, and a conclusion that is creatively satisfying. This film does not exactly do those things, but there are good scenes. Andy sniping Jay Leno and Burt Reynolds lookalikes is good for a laugh. The bloated zombie is too. But, nothing here is really scary and my tolerance is so fucking high. 

To add to some of the things I've alluded to above, there is a major problem with something I'd like to call "care factor." Other than Ving Rhames' character, I didn't give a shit about any of these people. It's simply not possible to do so because the characters are wafer thin or non-existent at all in some cases. I don't really know anything about them. In the case of Ana, even though we know her husband died, her grief remains entirely unexplored and forgotten, it just isn't a big deal in any way at all. It's actually quite surreal to see a character given that kind of treatment. This is one of many numerous mistakes, and there are lots of characters I haven't talked about, all of whom are practically irrelevant. The story also does not make that much sense and I'm confused what their motivations are to leave the mall in the first place. There's nothing out there for them, they know that, and they leave anyway. The lack of suspense is a major issue as well as I don't feel any dread whatsoever while watching this. On the other hand, it's not that kind of movie at all, and I really shouldn't care.

That this is a remake which certainly pissed other people off makes me appreciate the attempt a little bit, I've always been a big believer that no film is entirely sacred material. There are also a few good subplots that I have deliberately not mentioned in case anyone has their head in the sand to the same extent as me. Despite the massive gaps in logic that exist in this film, I actually liked a fair amount of it regardless of my criticisms. This is a mindless and nonsensical film, but it's a mindless film with many good scenes and two of my favorite actors. The first and third act are also superior to an otherwise moribund second act, the second act being the one where all the weaknesses of the film make themselves brutally obvious. However, there is quite a lot of gore to go with these good scenes, some zombies getting chopped in half with chainsaws or lit on fire, and that's some pretty good shit. I can't hate too much on a film with such glaring weaknesses, but neither should I feel a need to defend it to the hilt. Dawn of the Dead has a lot of weaknesses, but its biggest is that the genre has exploded since the release of this film, and therefore there are many other efforts to compare this to.

5.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,480
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #767 on: July 11, 2018, 06:57:48 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

I remember how hyped everyone was for The Village and it being somewhat dull.  Then he just died off with Lady in the Water and The Happening.  The latter is one I am sometimes curious to go back and re-watch but then I think of the movies from that period that I was okay with that I don't like at all now and assume outside the lawnmower laughs, it would be truly painful.

Lady in the Water was fucking terrible, and even worse? The Last Airbender .....an atrocious piece of shit, probably his worst one.

Offline Brocklock

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,226
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #768 on: July 11, 2018, 07:12:47 AM »
The Happening is so weird, bizarre, and awful that I recommend watching it at least once. Just to experience the hot dog man and the utterly terrible Wahlberg/Zooey performances.


Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #769 on: July 11, 2018, 06:01:04 PM »


Changeling (2008), directed by Clint Eastwood

I am often left with the same feeling after watching very long movies that don't quite meet the quality of being classic. I have no idea what to say about them, it is actually extremely difficult. I also think that the subject matter is quite strange for Clint Eastwood to take on. It's not so much that it doesn't fit his style, but there's no vigilantism here at all. That's what I've always associated with Eastwood and I can't shake it, that just is what it is. The screenplay also doesn't seem to pose those moral questions that Eastwood's films often pose to their viewers. On the other hand, this does fit a recent theme of Eastwood's, that he keeps making films based on true stories. This is something that for the most part I would consider to not be a good thing. While Eastwood should be lauded for some adherance to reality, he definitely took some creative liberties in making this film. The first, and most obvious one, is that Eastwood decides to leave out the murder suspect's mother. Who knows why, perhaps because the mother's inclusion is too ridiculous to be real, but stories like that are enhanced by the truth, there is no reason to leave it out. Besides that, this film is very careful to stick with reality.

Due to the length of this film, it is difficult to summarize in a way that doesn't completely give away the plot, but I have already done a fair bit of giving away the plot with my opening paragraph. Anyway, I'm going to do my best. Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) is a single mother in 1928 Los Angeles, a time period I never tire of seeing on film. Collins has a job, and her son Walter has to stay home one day while she's called into work. Unfortunately, while she's at work, Walter disappears and is clearly kidnapped. Many months later, LAPD tells Christine that they have found their son. The problem is that this child is clearly not Walter, and therefore not her son or her responsibility. LAPD has also decided to hold a public reunion, and Christine does not know this boy is unrelated to her until she arrives. Immediately Christine points out that this isn't her son, they simply won't listen. Captain Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) is head of the Juvenile Division, and he insists the boy is Walter. For him, this is a settled matter regardless of Christine's evidence.

Christine's evidence is also quite solid, she has dental records for Walter that prove this child doesn't have similar dental problems that Walter had. Can't fake those. "Walter" has been circumsized, but the police believe that could have happened when Walter was gone for six months. After all, "Walter" was abandoned by a transient who used him as collateral at a diner when they had no money to pay. The transient bailed the hell out of there, the owner called the police, and the police picked up "Walter." "Walter" is also three inches shorter than Walter, but unbelievably the doctor that Jones sends to examine him thinks this could have been natural. Like, for real? That's absolutely ludicrous and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Lastly, Walter's teacher states that "Walter" is not Walter, and performs a test in front of the class to prove that's the case. Of course, Jones and LAPD Chief Davis (Colm Feore) want this shit to go away, and they found the kid, so they don't care about anything Christine says. Christine feels otherwise, and decides to enlist a popular reverend, Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) to state her case on the radio. After Christine tells her story, LAPD picks her up, and has her sent to...THE LA COUNTY PSYCHOPATHIC WARD.

Some of the shit in this movie is so unreal that I can't believe it's real, but it was and that's insane. I can't believe it. Apparently it was common practice for LAPD to send people to the psychiatric ward once they became a problem for police officers, whether or not their complaints were legitimate. You know, it still is common practice to do wack shit like that, so I shouldn't say it was common anything. That stuff still happens and there was just a story today where the Trump Administration admitted that they may be holding US citizens in those immigration concentration camps they've put up around the country. Naturally a large portion of the population doesn't care about that, but in these days, police corruption was a big deal worth protesting over. At least that's the way Eastwood presents things here. We all know that cops do shady shit in 2018, but the world was more sheltered in 2008, and people refused to believe that these things happen. There are still holdouts, but those people are idiots, and I don't feel sorry for you if you're one of them. You're just an IDIOT. Now that I'm done with that tangent, there's another thing in this film that is related to Tom Mix, which is absolutely beyond ludicrous. I don't want to say. If you don't know, Mix was the first star of Western films. Mix also got John Wayne into Hollywood.

Because of how long this film is, it's very difficult to figure out how to tackle this, but there were some good unnamed performances in here. Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner have the best supporting turns of the bunch, but if you haven't seen this I see no reason to spoil what characters they play. It's just a coincidence that I watched two films in a row with Doug Stamper in them. I swear. I thought the story of the film was very good even though the details tying everything together are not presented in my favorite fashion. It's hard to not have a good story when a film with this size of a budget gets made at over two hours long. Of course, there are exceptions, but $55 million and 142 minutes usually leads to studio interference that ensures the thing doesn't go to shit. Also, it's Clint Eastwood. That leads to expectations. That some of those expectations aren't met is also no surprise. I can't describe how, but something about the setting is just too sanitized and it doesn't really feel right. I also don't love what Jolie was made to do in this film. Good performance, absolutely. Well rounded character, absolutely not. Repeating the same line over and over again strikes me as a huge mistake.

That this is a very good story can only take the film so far. Due to the lack of variety in lines for Jolie's character, Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner are given the job of carrying the second act of the film on their backs. They do a hell of a job and I don't have a single negative thing to say about their performances. I have never seen Harner in anything before and am wondering how that is. He was extremely convincing. There is a scene with him in it that Eastwood has talked about, so if you pay attention to that kind of thing or have seen this you know what I'm talking about, but Eastwood said that he made this scene deliberately difficult to watch. There are numerous scenes of this kind, my mom actually had to tap out at the first one of them and left me to finish this movie off for myself. Contrary to popular belief, I think that when someone decides they can't watch a movie anymore due to how realistic it is, that the filmmaker and actor(s) involved in the scene causing them to do that have done an amazing job. This film does have amazing scenes, there is no denying that, but the threads tying the third act together fell apart massively for me. Any sins prior to that could be forgiven, but I found the official proceedings utterly boring on all levels, and for me they destroy an otherwise fantastic film.

7.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #770 on: July 12, 2018, 01:20:43 PM »
SPOILED EVERYTHING



Win It All (2017), directed by Joe Swanberg

No big introduction here, as I have no idea about the filmmaker whatsoever. It would be foolish to say anything on that subject at all. Let's get straight to the story. Eddie (Jake Johnson) appears to be a guy who parks cars outside of Wrigley Field and does odd jobs and lazy shit to get through life. Except, I'm not sure how he actually gets through life. See, Eddie is a gambling addict. He took his money from parking cars and immediately lost it. After returning home, there's a man in his house, we'll call him Michael (Jose A. Garcia). Michael wants Eddie to store a bag while he's in prison, it is never stated why he's in prison. He just was going for six to nine months. If Eddie stores the bag for Michael, Michael will give him $10,000. Sweet deal, right? Thing is, as stated, Eddie is a gambling addict.

In being a gambling addict, Eddie is simply unable to resist looking in the bag, even when he's not supposed to. Why would you look in the bag of someone who seems like they could murder someone? This guy does. Eddie has a sponsor, Gene (Keegan-Michael Key), and Gene tells him that he really shouldn't look inside the bag. You know what's in the bag? Murder tools. Money. Lots of money. Guess what Eddie does with it? I don't even need to tell you. In the meantime, Eddie has met a woman, Eva (Aislinn Derbez), and they become very interested in each other even though Eddie never says a word to her about his gambling problem. His brother, Ron (Joe Lo Truglio), has also offered him a job with a landscaping company that Ron owns, because Eddie needs to get his life together and shit. So, with that in mind, what do you think happens? I'll just point out the obvious because you can see it coming from miles away, Michael is getting out of prison early.

What I hope to see in Netflix movies is for a filmmaker to eschew the conventional ending and just go full bore into the story, but that was never likely to happen. I think it should have turned out that Eddie couldn't win the money back and had to leave Chicago, but a movie never turns out like that. I know there are exceptions, but I don't think people can handle bad endings. Due to this ending being so conventional, I went from wanting to love this movie to overall being slightly disappointed by it. I cannot reiterate enough that I feel like Netflix films should eschew convention as much as possible, because after all, there's no box office in play here. The problem with that is that some of these are not produced by Netflix, and this film falls into that category. It's not like they knew. So, it's a bit of a harsh criticism, but it's also a fair and valid one in the sense that the movie still exists with that weakness.

I think that this is a solid story, but the ending is just so weak that I can't get over it at all. I'm also left with one other thing to take away from this, that Keegan-Michael Key is now doing Netflix films, but that's actually pretty sad and I don't want to think about it too much. Also, in being unfamiliar with this director and subsequently looking him up, I'm very stunned by how much content this man has put out there. And yet, I've never heard of any of it at all. How is that possible? Who knows, but it's funny to see the paths people take to create their fame and get their name out there. I'm sure there are many people who like this film more, because it does tell a good story, but I can't go overboard with praise. I am simply incapable of doing so. There are some good production gimmicks like showing how much money Eddie has lost, the final poker scene, and there's also some funny jokes throughout the film, but it isn't one of my favorites. It's still good, but it's too short to say a whole lot about it.

6.5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #771 on: July 13, 2018, 06:38:33 PM »


Cafe Society (2016), directed by Woody Allen

No matter how shocking this may be, this is the first Woody Allen film I've bothered to take a look at. I have stated that the indiscretions or crimes of filmmakers/actors/wrestlers do not impact my ability to watch their work, so that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Instead, it's more related to the genre his films are usually classified in. This isn't my genre, it almost doesn't matter what Woody Allen has to say about love, the overall point is that I don't like watching movies about love. Perhaps it is specifically that I don't like watching movies like this one. I have a fair bit to say about the events here, but I laughed when I turned this on and immediately learned that Bruce Willis was fired from this film for not learning his lines. I mean, I don't know how that's possible considering the role he would have played only has a couple scenes that required a decent amount of talking, however one of them is a long shot that didn't allow for messing up. So, that's probably it. Anyway, let's get on with it.

Cafe Society is a genuinely horrendous title, the kind someone would think up when they have no idea what to call their film. Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) is the youngest son of a Jewish family from New York City in the 1930's. His brother Ben (Corey Stoll) is a gangster, his sister Evelyn (Sari Lennick) is a teacher married to a communist, and his parents Rose (Jeannie Berlin) and Marty (Ken Stott) fight and bicker like old people always do. Bobby wants to make his way to Hollywood, he can't handle living in New York and making his way the hard way like his father. He has an out as well, he's a lucky guy. His uncle Phil (Steve Carell) is a big shot agent with lots of famous clients, and Phil is willing to break Bobby in as an agent. He just needs someone, and Bobby's job is going to be to run errands for him. That's a shit job, but hey, it's a start and the guy can get out of a motel and do something for himself.

After this initial meeting, Phil introduces Bobby to his secretary, Vonnie (Kristen Stewart). So, that's again with Eisenberg and Stewart, too many times now. Can they please stop? Naturally, as you may have guessed from my comments, while Vonnie is supposed to show Bobby around town so he can learn about the city, they wind up spending a lot of time together and Bobby develops a major crush on her. He thinks she's different, and I guess she is, but she has a boyfriend named Doug. Bobby consistently and creepily pressures her to get with him instead, but there's a little twist coming that isn't entirely shocking at all. See, her boyfriend isn't named Doug, it's Phil, Bobby's uncle. Anyone could have guessed that. Phil tells her he's going to divorce his wife, but he changes his mind and can't do it. So, Vonnie goes over to Bobby's house the same night and over the course of a few weeks, their friendship turns into a blossoming love. Eventually...I'm gonna stop there.

This movie suffers from many fatal errors, all of which are like individual arrows that eventually shoot this kite out of the sky and into a lake. By far the most egregious is the concept being written in a way that inevitably leads to the movie becoming stuck in first gear. These are numerous errors all on their own because of how they played out. It took well past the halfway point for me to care about these events at all, but it was a false hope, things went straight back into first gear like this was an entirely new film. That is an enormous mistake, we are talking about effectively ten minutes of this film that aren't spent developing the story to what I'd call its two endings. I really wish I hadn't watched this considering that was the case. Talk about a waste of time, this was a bad screenplay and I'm surprised anyone gave him money to film it. Another huge weakness of the film is that Bobby's parents and his brother Ben are simply far more interesting than Bobby and Vonnie. I think Woody Allen subconsciously knew this too, that's why the events on the screen kept coming back to them in one way or another. I would love to see a movie about those three, which I guess this is, but that's not enough.

The errors above weren't all of them either, I actually have quite a few more. There are a few superfluous characters that are unneeded in the film. I'd rather not spoil in case someone wants to watch this, but any scenes with them were effectively neutralized by the manner of storytelling. Surprisingly, Woody Allen's role as the narrator was not one of these weaknesses, but I don't care for Jesse Eisenberg acting as an avatar of Woody Allen. I used to hate Eisenberg, but I don't anymore and I've explained this. The End of the Tour blew those feelings straight out of me, I thought that was an excellent performance in a quite difficult role to play. I always feel that way about films where a performer completely steals the show, to be excellent alongside of that person is quite an achievement. Back to the film, the error I must mention because it perpetrates a horrible worldview, is the way that people in the film talk about motherhood. I don't know if these lines were supposed to be funny, but I didn't find them funny at all, I found them abhorrent. Both male leads (Carell and Eisenberg) showcased horrid traits, the kind that make it hard for me to finish a film unless I know beforehand it's a kind of crime film where the point of watching it is to see how horrible the character actually is. The thing is, I didn't want that, I watched this because I wanted to see a good love story. It had been a while. This just wasn't that, I thought it was complete bullshit. Worst of all is that we know that Woody Allen really does think these kinds of awful things about women, yet nobody who collaborates with him seems to care.

There are some positives, I have already mentioned a few (Bobby's family), there are some others that require praise. This is an absolutely beautiful film, it is probably shameful that I haven't seen anything filmed by Vittorio Storaro before. I believe I am missing something major here, and for that I am totally bummed the fuck out. It takes a special kind of talent to make films look above the rest of their class when great filming equipment is so easy to find these days. The framing of scenes here is exquisite. One inside a courtroom managed to make me feel as if I was actually there, but it was almost better than being there on some level. Another series of scenes, filmed during the Hollywood tour I mentioned in my second paragraph, was so excellently filmed I could hardly believe it was real. If Eisenberg hadn't bashed into a plant, I wouldn't have believed it. It was that well framed. To go back to something mentioned earlier, Woody Allen was a good narrator and kept things moving, without a narrator this film is a massive mess. Eisenberg also put in another good performance despite my problems with the character he portrayed, and the dialogue was quite realistic for the 1930's. It is also very easy to forget this is supposed to be the 1930's because of how this film looks. While this isn't a mess, I just don't think it's a particularly good film. The problem is, it is so visually impressive that I can't give it the truly horrendous grade it really deserves.

5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #772 on: July 14, 2018, 05:57:45 PM »


Edge of Darkness (2010), directed by Martin Campbell

How many directors make a TV show 25 years prior, which leads to them eventually making a feature film about the series that condenses it into two hours? Well, Martin Campbell did just that, then he directed Green Lantern and washed out of Hollywood. That can tell you a lot about the way this film went, but there's more to it than that. As pictured above, this a Mel Gibson starring vehicle and this was after he made all those crazy anti-semitic comments. This film also came out after he'd done a bunch of awful things to Oksana Grigorieva, however the general public didn't know about any of those things yet. I can only imagine what kind of bomb this would have been if those things had been made public before the film's release. Frankly, they should have. I wonder if people felt badly for having gone to this movie once they learned those things. Perhaps, but you know, hopefully not. It's not like anyone could know he was a piece of shit to that complete extent. Only an anti-semitic piece of shit! This film originally had Robert De Niro cast in a role, and I'll point out which one when I can get to it, but I can imagine this would have been a lot better and everyone involved with the project would have felt more motivated to push forward.

Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) is a homicide detective in Boston, who picks up his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) on her visit home. While getting into the car, she vomits, so the viewer instantly knows this won't go well. While her dad is making dinner, she starts bleeding from the nose and vomits again, so they need to go to the hospital. After they open the door, some guy shouts "CRAVEN" and shoots Emma in the guts with a shotgun, killing her. This film is not great with disguise, however. For some insane reason, Craven is allowed to investigate his daughter's death and this doesn't even slightly factor into the story. The Boston Police Department seems to not even care at all. Craven continues his investigation, eventually visiting her boyfriend David (Shawn Roberts), Emma's own apartment, calling a friend of hers, and visiting her employeer, Northmoor. This is a long chase down and takes up quite a bit of time, and somehow I've managed to not describe what this film is actually about in the time that I've been writing this. You know how hard that is to do? Below are some details.

In this Death Wish type story, those movies being something I need to watch I should add, Craven's job is to investigate his daughter's murder by any means necessary. Initially he assumes the murderer was trying to kill him, this is not true. Craven decides that he is not going to tell his department about his own personal investigation, which he gets away with because why does any of that shit matter? In the process of his investigation there are a few good action scenes and all that stuff, but eventually he decides to circle a name on his list, Jack Bennett (Danny Huston), the CEO of Northmoor. Why Northmoor? See, Craven has found out that his daughter's hair was radioactive based on some things he found over the course of the parts I discussed earlier. Northmoor was developing nuclear weapons, Emma worked in the research department, and there you have it. In addition to that, a sneaky man who appears at various points of the film has hired a security consultant, Darius Jedbergh (Ray Winstone). This was De Niro's role, he quit on the spot after not liking something related to the story. Jedbergh and Craven meet, and I'll leave everything at that.

I feel like this is a completely standard conspiracy thriller, so it's difficult to play this review out like some of the others. In some respects it is difficult to buy Gibson's performance and in others it isn't. We know Gibson has a propensity to say crazy things, I think my problem with this film is that they aren't convincing enough as the things he says are not crazy enough. That's really bad, honestly, that you've heard the guy say worse and can't buy his performance because of that. This is also filmed like an 80's film, which is really weird with modern equipment. I also believe the film suffers from how streamlined it is, although the introduction of more characters towards the end does enhance the events. The murder of Emma also happens within ten minutes of turning this on, so I didn't spoil anything as it relates to that. You know her death is coming the entire way, the moment the film starts with flashback home videos of Emma as a young girl. There's nothing left to the imagination here either, the murder is extremely bloody and took me by surprise. But hey, that's Mel Gibson and a film with him in it is going to have that.

I think the film is also reasonably intriguing, which wasn't something I expected from those first ten minutes and the following ten as well. I thought I was in for something horribly boring, but this wasn't like that. I don't think this was a good film due to the amount of plotholes contained within, but it definitely was interesting. We don't know why Jedbergh is in this film or what his motivations are, but we do learn that he's also sick and dying. There's another thing in this film that comes by surprise even though the filmmaker decides to make it obvious the whole time, but I didn't realize until the last thirty minutes or so. The ending of Craven's story does come a bit abruptly for my liking, and the attempt to craft a touching ending just doesn't fit at all. Ultimately, this film is really violent, and if you're here for Death Wish shit, this is for you. There's one good chase scene in particular that belonged in a better film, but I learned that Martin Campbell wasn't what made Casino Royale so spectacular, it was the standards of the producers. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense at all. This is a standard 5/10 even though I just gave one of those out, and I hate doing that two times in a row, but I can't separate the films from one another. It takes some elevation to bring a standard "father avenges daughter" story beyond such a rating, seeing as it has been done so many times before.

5/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Saddam of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 30,630
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #773 on: Today at 06:11:10 PM »


Paterson (2016), directed by Jim Jarmusch

I am unfamiliar with Jim Jarmusch's work, but this film paints quite a picture of what the rest of his work may look like. This is a film completely stripped of anything requiring special effects or nonsense, something that brings reality to the screen. This is a fresh outlook on things because as you guys may be aware, I watch a lot of films that feature nonsense. Practically everyone does, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's neat to get snapped back to reality. This is a story that centers around someone all of us could realistically know, it's actually quite strange in that regard. When I was in school, I knew lots of people like this, who had differing interests from everyone else, but the atmosphere in that situation is entirely different. Most people are dissuaded from doing the things they like to do in those years, but when you're an adult you can do whatever you want. Poetry would fit into that scope of things on both ends of that scenario, and poetry in combination with other things make for an excellently moving portrayal of how people get through life.

This film is told in odd narrative style, in the sense that it takes us through seven days in the life of Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver who works in Paterson, New Jersey. His daily life is quite similar from one day to the next. His wife Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) stays at home, Paterson goes to work to drive his bus Monday through Friday. Paterson wakes up very early, gets to work, his boss speaks to him in the same fashion every day. He drives the bus, listens to passengers speak, and wonders what his wife is doing at home. In the time between this, he writes poetry in his notebook and thinks about it constantly. After he gets home, he takes his wife's dog out for a walk every night. On the way back home, he stops at a bar and has a beer, having different conversations with Doc (Barry Shabaka Henley) and other patrons. Before the walk, he and his wife talk about what they did with their days. This is very literally the entire film and all I can say without spoiling each day at a time, which I think would be quite foolish of me.

I am making a strong effort not to spoil things because I feel that people should watch this film. It's on Amazon Prime Video, so if you have it, check it out. This film presents a portrait of an artist that we don't often see. He's not struggling through life and has no intention of making his big break through poetry, Paterson just wants to sit and watch things that happen in daily life. He also has no real intention of sharing his poems with everyone else, they seem to be for him and his own thoughts. There are some other characters and artists who appear, one in particular being famous, but I don't want to spoil whom. The person is doing their laundry and isn't guarded when they see Paterson watching them, they're friendly when they see Paterson and his dog standing there. It is the kind of film that shows it is healthy to focus on your art and that it doesn't have to consume everyone who makes things, or make them into an asshole, or what have you. Those things are just something naturally in a person and have nothing to do with their art.

Spoiler: show
As a contrast to Paterson, his wife Laura is consumed by her art. She is dead set on using it to make something of herself, and I find this pairing a bit odd in fact. The two people are quite different from one another and there are aspects of their relationship that make me wonder if this film is supposed to be about how mundane Paterson's life is. As stated above, he does the same thing every day, but so does everyone else, this doesn't feel some kind of statement about how mundane everyone's lives really are. It's just the simple fact that all our lives do resemble this in some fashion, and the film allows people who are paying attention to draw comparisons between Paterson and themselves. This film is also not depressing and I think it would be foolish to say that even though there's no doubt one could draw that from the events of the movie. I also think the way Jarmusch takes events and builds them up to being a big nothing is quite amusing. It plays tricks with my expectations from movies, where everything's supposed to be something, but instead it isn't. The only case of an event that builds up to something is Paterson's notebook being eaten by Marvin. Then again, the events afterward are not a conventional resolution in films.


There are many different ways to look at the things in this film, but overall I think that this is a rare case of a quality feel good movie. There are very few good cases of those in this decade. To take a different look at this, I think a lot of people who feel their lives are very mundane would be the kind to find this film very boring. I believe this film is more about Paterson's approach to his art more than the rest, but who's to say I'm write. There's so much here that's open to interpretation, to the extent that the film seems deliberately provocative in that regard. I am also interested in what to make of the numerous books on Paterson's shelf, because they definitely seemed to be placed there for a reason by somebody, but again that's probably something entirely open to interpretation. I did find it odd to observe Paterson though. A person who doesn't offer strong emotions is something I'm simply not used to, and it's the kind of person that I've rarely been around. He is mega stoic, this is a foreign concept for me. The ending, by the way, feels like a classic case of a filmmaker sending a message through a character, that people should accept who they are. That's the simplest way to look at the film, and perhaps that's all it's really supposed to mean.

That one is able to look at a film this way is always owed to the performances on the screen, and Adam Driver had a really good one here. I was quite surprised that he was actually driving the bus in the film as that seemed really unusual for this sort of project, but he is clearly quite dedicated to his craft. So, in that way, this film can also be extended to being about himself and his own approach to art, just as Paterson's or Laura's. Some of the supporting characters are really good as well, but it's actually impossible to talk about them without spoiling. I have been very careful to not do so (outside of the spoiler tags), I thought that was the least I could do. Those supporting characters break the monotony of Paterson's life, just as odd people do in our own, those are the events that keep us going and keep us from turning into robots. Our human interaction with them is essential to personal growth, and for Paterson, it's entirely essential to his artistic growth. The vast majority of his poetry is related to his interactions with those characters, or with other objects, or the tangentially related things that come about as a result of those interactions.

8/10
koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest