-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Media itt: movie/film discussion - Beware Spoilers
- Thread starter Jebus McAzn
- Start date
what movie has come out this year that's better than Kubo? it hasn't exactly been an incredible year for cinema
It may not be last year, but I'd say that a year with both Kubo and Civil War is not slouching. Which I would say is better than Kubo, but it's astoundingly close (on my top 250, they are also both really close to Fury Road). Oh, let's not forget The Nice Guys, Deadpool, and Zootopia either.
#126: The Passion of Joan of Arc
This silent film, thought lost for decades, is definitely worth watching. It captures a moment in history almost as if it happened, is really bravely shot with its close-ups, has some very raw acting, and the music that comes with the Criterion version is incredibly good (even if not the original music). But is it a very good movie? Maybe it's my bias against biopics, but I don't think there's much substance to be gotten out of this. And what exactly makes it much different from The Passion of the Christ, a movie criticized for drawing out the martyrdom of an amazing figure when so much of their life could have been covered instead?
#212: Donnie Darko
This film reminds me a lot, appropriately, of Life is Strange. That's a good thing. It's an enjoyable watch, you find yourself getting caught up in its strange events and bizarre characters. That's especially good, because I've never watched a movie that I didn't understand until now. The plot had to be explained to me for it to make any sense at all. Maybe it's just the kind of movie you aught to watch twice, which is fine, it's enjoyable enough the first time for that. But maybe certain pivotal elements are just not made clear enough, or at all. Like I said, this doesn't happen to me. And I'm pretty sure that in a certain climactic scene where he's supposed to be saving the world that he is doing absolutely nothing. Like, he could have been eating a bag of cheetos and then online I'd be told that he was using 5 different superpowers I was never aware of.
#214: 8 1/2
This film was made by Federico Fellini, who also made Nights of Cabiria. It's incredibly similar to Cinema Paradiso, a film about a director's nostalgic memories. And it's not as good as either. I was waiting for the film to grab me, but instead it just went on and on with characters asking the director why he has no ideas for his movie, peppered with pseudo-pretentious dialogue. It builds to a point, but I need a little more than that from these old black and white films. Cabiria was compelling within 40 minutes.
#224: Infernal Affairs
I actually saw this movie weeks ago with some friends, thought "hey, it's on my list", and then forgot that I had seen it for a while. Not a good thing. For those who don't know, this is the original Hong Kong film that was remade by Martin Scorsese into his Oscar-winning The Departed. And that's the only reason it's on here. Because there's this huge bias that an American remake can't be better than the original, and that's generally true, but here's the exception. Martin Scorsese is a great director, but does not always choose to tell the best stories. Infernal Affairs is a good story on paper, but man it's muddled as fuck in execution. The pointless love interest, the drawn-out scenes, repetitive sappy flashbacks... some of the best scenes in The Departed are ruined in Infernal Affairs. That might sound odd, but I mean, what was originally in the script for Infernal Affairs absolutely gets shredded at points. The Departed restores justice to it.
#126: The Passion of Joan of Arc
This silent film, thought lost for decades, is definitely worth watching. It captures a moment in history almost as if it happened, is really bravely shot with its close-ups, has some very raw acting, and the music that comes with the Criterion version is incredibly good (even if not the original music). But is it a very good movie? Maybe it's my bias against biopics, but I don't think there's much substance to be gotten out of this. And what exactly makes it much different from The Passion of the Christ, a movie criticized for drawing out the martyrdom of an amazing figure when so much of their life could have been covered instead?
#212: Donnie Darko
This film reminds me a lot, appropriately, of Life is Strange. That's a good thing. It's an enjoyable watch, you find yourself getting caught up in its strange events and bizarre characters. That's especially good, because I've never watched a movie that I didn't understand until now. The plot had to be explained to me for it to make any sense at all. Maybe it's just the kind of movie you aught to watch twice, which is fine, it's enjoyable enough the first time for that. But maybe certain pivotal elements are just not made clear enough, or at all. Like I said, this doesn't happen to me. And I'm pretty sure that in a certain climactic scene where he's supposed to be saving the world that he is doing absolutely nothing. Like, he could have been eating a bag of cheetos and then online I'd be told that he was using 5 different superpowers I was never aware of.
#214: 8 1/2
This film was made by Federico Fellini, who also made Nights of Cabiria. It's incredibly similar to Cinema Paradiso, a film about a director's nostalgic memories. And it's not as good as either. I was waiting for the film to grab me, but instead it just went on and on with characters asking the director why he has no ideas for his movie, peppered with pseudo-pretentious dialogue. It builds to a point, but I need a little more than that from these old black and white films. Cabiria was compelling within 40 minutes.
#224: Infernal Affairs
I actually saw this movie weeks ago with some friends, thought "hey, it's on my list", and then forgot that I had seen it for a while. Not a good thing. For those who don't know, this is the original Hong Kong film that was remade by Martin Scorsese into his Oscar-winning The Departed. And that's the only reason it's on here. Because there's this huge bias that an American remake can't be better than the original, and that's generally true, but here's the exception. Martin Scorsese is a great director, but does not always choose to tell the best stories. Infernal Affairs is a good story on paper, but man it's muddled as fuck in execution. The pointless love interest, the drawn-out scenes, repetitive sappy flashbacks... some of the best scenes in The Departed are ruined in Infernal Affairs. That might sound odd, but I mean, what was originally in the script for Infernal Affairs absolutely gets shredded at points. The Departed restores justice to it.
Last edited:
the neon demon and the handmaiden were both pretty good
A double-feature with movies about a guy from a post-apocalyptic world going back in time to save the human race, only for everyone to think they are crazy.
#218: The Terminator
It's a lot like Alien in that it's a straight sc-fi horror film that would get more of an action sequel. But unlike Alien to Aliens, Terminator is nowhere near as good as Judgement Day. To be sure, the horror elements are solid, and you can see the Resident Evil inspiration in this one as well. But the exposition is weighed down in one spot (and it feels like Kyle Reese is telling the audience the mythology of the series more than Sarah Connor, why would he tell her this stuff?), Kyle Reese is fucking terrible, and the main character has to act kind of stupid in order to keep Arnold on her tail.
#219: Twelve Monkeys
Even though this movie explicitly acknowledges french film The Jetty for borrowing its basic structure, it also feels like a deconstruction of The Terminator. Sure, characters called Kyle Reese crazy, but James Cole spends a large portion of this movie in a mental institution. By the end of the movie he's not sure if he's sane, and at parts neither are we. I definitely haven't seen enough Terry Gilliam. The surrealism he brings to the table stretches out the rather thin plot borrowed from said short film.
#218: The Terminator
It's a lot like Alien in that it's a straight sc-fi horror film that would get more of an action sequel. But unlike Alien to Aliens, Terminator is nowhere near as good as Judgement Day. To be sure, the horror elements are solid, and you can see the Resident Evil inspiration in this one as well. But the exposition is weighed down in one spot (and it feels like Kyle Reese is telling the audience the mythology of the series more than Sarah Connor, why would he tell her this stuff?), Kyle Reese is fucking terrible, and the main character has to act kind of stupid in order to keep Arnold on her tail.
#219: Twelve Monkeys
Even though this movie explicitly acknowledges french film The Jetty for borrowing its basic structure, it also feels like a deconstruction of The Terminator. Sure, characters called Kyle Reese crazy, but James Cole spends a large portion of this movie in a mental institution. By the end of the movie he's not sure if he's sane, and at parts neither are we. I definitely haven't seen enough Terry Gilliam. The surrealism he brings to the table stretches out the rather thin plot borrowed from said short film.
Last edited:
#220: The Best Years of Our Lives
Bear in mind, in the black and white era Billy Wilder was considered cynical. So I could see people receiving this as a really dark, anti-war movie. And the title itself is instantly evocative of ideas put forth in All Quiet on the Western Front. But compared to that, and other books from the time, this movie is saccharine. The film carries no real consequences to the end. Instead of worrying about the jobs and livelihood of people, romance is all that really matters, and everyone gets the girl in the end. Spend a large portion of the movie on a love triangle? Why not? It's the 40s. What are you, a commie? We blacklist (BAN ME PLEASE) who want critical thinking in the medium (and if you don't like black and white movies, you're a philistine who never bothered to watch any).
Of the three principle characters in this movie, the best one gets by far the least screen time. An actual war cripple plays a sailor who lost his hands. Even though he's by no means an actor, his real feelings make his scenes actually matter. When I think of what he put into this film, it really feels like a 10/10 movie. But everything else, eh...
#225: Prisoners
At first this movie reminded me of Memories of Murder, a film about futility and desperation in police work. It almost feels beat for beat for a while, with a string of convincing red herring characters to throw off the characters and the viewer. Except then at the end most everything gets wrapped up nicely in a bow (save for the MASSIVE PLOT HOLES. One of the titular prisoners is put inside a literal plot hole). Hugh Jackman is an asshole who never accomplishes anything and never meaningfully faces his character flaws, while Jake Gyllenhaal is a detective who has solved every case ever, which was a laughable thing to assert even before the viewer finds out that he's one of the world's most incompetent dumbasses.
The acting, direction, suspense, and let's face it, mostly benefit of the doubt that this movie was aiming for something smarter than a neat hollywood ending, initially led me to give this movie a half-decent rating. But that's fallen fast.
Bear in mind, in the black and white era Billy Wilder was considered cynical. So I could see people receiving this as a really dark, anti-war movie. And the title itself is instantly evocative of ideas put forth in All Quiet on the Western Front. But compared to that, and other books from the time, this movie is saccharine. The film carries no real consequences to the end. Instead of worrying about the jobs and livelihood of people, romance is all that really matters, and everyone gets the girl in the end. Spend a large portion of the movie on a love triangle? Why not? It's the 40s. What are you, a commie? We blacklist (BAN ME PLEASE) who want critical thinking in the medium (and if you don't like black and white movies, you're a philistine who never bothered to watch any).
Of the three principle characters in this movie, the best one gets by far the least screen time. An actual war cripple plays a sailor who lost his hands. Even though he's by no means an actor, his real feelings make his scenes actually matter. When I think of what he put into this film, it really feels like a 10/10 movie. But everything else, eh...
#225: Prisoners
At first this movie reminded me of Memories of Murder, a film about futility and desperation in police work. It almost feels beat for beat for a while, with a string of convincing red herring characters to throw off the characters and the viewer. Except then at the end most everything gets wrapped up nicely in a bow (save for the MASSIVE PLOT HOLES. One of the titular prisoners is put inside a literal plot hole). Hugh Jackman is an asshole who never accomplishes anything and never meaningfully faces his character flaws, while Jake Gyllenhaal is a detective who has solved every case ever, which was a laughable thing to assert even before the viewer finds out that he's one of the world's most incompetent dumbasses.
The acting, direction, suspense, and let's face it, mostly benefit of the doubt that this movie was aiming for something smarter than a neat hollywood ending, initially led me to give this movie a half-decent rating. But that's fallen fast.
Last edited:
This unedited, un-special effected video of Mad Max gives me a far deeper appreciation for the film...
#226: Barry Lyndon
Every movie Stanley Kubrick has made has been an 8 or a 9 in my eyes. With really only a handful of his movies left for me to see, I'm looking for that missing 10. This took me in the opposite direction. Sure, for the first half (it is a 3 hour movie with an intermission) it's mildly entertaining. But the second half is just a drawn-out sequence of Barry being an asshole and ultimately getting what he deserves. The real killer was the movie I watched right afterward. Barry Lyndon is supposed to be the quintessential Irish rogue, but seeing Drunken Master afterward, now that's a great rogue.
#227: La Haine
Title translates to "The Hatred". Couldn't be more topical 20 years later. This is a film about rising tension over police brutality, especially toward minorities. It's not entirely an anti-cop movie, though it's not flattering. But if you read between the lines, it has more to do with the fundamental ignorance of mankind to causes us to need an en enemy. It's sort of a slow-burn movie, but pretty good.
We talked recently about whether this year had any good movies or not, well I've found another 10. Literally. 10 Cloverfield Lane works fantastically as a horror/thriller, but when you realize that it's secretly the superhero origin story of the main character, and that you're waiting for literally any sequel where she gets to kick ass, that's when you know that you're watching something awesome.
Every movie Stanley Kubrick has made has been an 8 or a 9 in my eyes. With really only a handful of his movies left for me to see, I'm looking for that missing 10. This took me in the opposite direction. Sure, for the first half (it is a 3 hour movie with an intermission) it's mildly entertaining. But the second half is just a drawn-out sequence of Barry being an asshole and ultimately getting what he deserves. The real killer was the movie I watched right afterward. Barry Lyndon is supposed to be the quintessential Irish rogue, but seeing Drunken Master afterward, now that's a great rogue.
#227: La Haine
Title translates to "The Hatred". Couldn't be more topical 20 years later. This is a film about rising tension over police brutality, especially toward minorities. It's not entirely an anti-cop movie, though it's not flattering. But if you read between the lines, it has more to do with the fundamental ignorance of mankind to causes us to need an en enemy. It's sort of a slow-burn movie, but pretty good.
We talked recently about whether this year had any good movies or not, well I've found another 10. Literally. 10 Cloverfield Lane works fantastically as a horror/thriller, but when you realize that it's secretly the superhero origin story of the main character, and that you're waiting for literally any sequel where she gets to kick ass, that's when you know that you're watching something awesome.
There is a new movie coming out called "Split" in which a man that has 10+ personalities kidnaps 3 girls, and they try to use his other personalities which vary to help them escape. If you have a great interest in psychology and what goes on in the human mind, I advice you to check it out. Try watching the trailer I promise it will appeal as interesting.
#229: Kind Hearts and Coronets
The more I watch old movies, the more I'm biased against old hollywood. This is NOT a hollywood film, but a UK production, but case in point, it got heavily censored in the US. So how good is the original? How good would you imagine a movie to be where a man murders 8 characters, all played by Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi)? Good, but not that good. For one thing, even a single murder really improves the main character's life. Everything after that is increasingly greedy. He gets caught in the end due to a very stupid mistake, but the viewer isn't really sure if they want him to be free or not. I've seen this movie billed as a comedy, but it's not like, funny. I guess something is automatically a comedy in the UK if a man plays a woman at some point.
#233: The Battle of Algiers
The first thing you notice is that the music is very good. The second thing is Ennio Morricone's name in the opening credits. Makes sense. The score alone elevates many tense scenes to awesomeness. The Battle of Algiers is about the Algierian fight for independence from the French, mostly through the terrorist organization the FLN. The film is brutally fair. The French are hypocritical fascists and oppressors. The FLN fight tyranny with tyranny by enforcing Sharia law. Both sides are not against killing innocents and children. It's a very informative movie, not just historically, but it's important even now as the east and west continue to be embroiled in these kinds of situations. The US government thought so, they had a special screening of the film early in the Iraq war. Too bad they didn't learn much.
The more I watch old movies, the more I'm biased against old hollywood. This is NOT a hollywood film, but a UK production, but case in point, it got heavily censored in the US. So how good is the original? How good would you imagine a movie to be where a man murders 8 characters, all played by Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi)? Good, but not that good. For one thing, even a single murder really improves the main character's life. Everything after that is increasingly greedy. He gets caught in the end due to a very stupid mistake, but the viewer isn't really sure if they want him to be free or not. I've seen this movie billed as a comedy, but it's not like, funny. I guess something is automatically a comedy in the UK if a man plays a woman at some point.
#233: The Battle of Algiers
The first thing you notice is that the music is very good. The second thing is Ennio Morricone's name in the opening credits. Makes sense. The score alone elevates many tense scenes to awesomeness. The Battle of Algiers is about the Algierian fight for independence from the French, mostly through the terrorist organization the FLN. The film is brutally fair. The French are hypocritical fascists and oppressors. The FLN fight tyranny with tyranny by enforcing Sharia law. Both sides are not against killing innocents and children. It's a very informative movie, not just historically, but it's important even now as the east and west continue to be embroiled in these kinds of situations. The US government thought so, they had a special screening of the film early in the Iraq war. Too bad they didn't learn much.
Time for my controversial pick of the year.
I'm as surprised as anyone that Ben-Hur is an amazing movie. While it doesn't have the amazing acting of Heston and Boyd, and the chariot scene isn't quite as good (possibly cause I'd seen the original first), it does have enough of its own qualities to dwarf the original. The characters are much more firmly fleshed out and believable. Messala isn't a mystery douche, Judah isn't too perfect. They both have very believable character arcs and fall into rivalry much more naturally. Judah's wife plays an important role in the narrative instead that squicky "I'll free my slave by marrying her" scene. And even Jesus is more of a character, so that his influence fits much more naturally into the story and you actually feel the grandeur you are supposed to when he's up on the cross. It feels like the natural climax of the story and not an afterthought.
People are acting like the original is an untouchable epic. But it came from a book originally, and as epic as Charlton Heston's acting and that chariot race are, the dilemma of how to balance old testament justice and new testament forgiveness, and how it affects the lives of believable characters, is so much more epic. And the original muddles that a bit in ways this film nails.
"It has no big name actors" critics whine. Even though it got actual people of color to play Israelis and even Jesus. You know, that thing we complain about when we fuck it up 99 times out of 100.
I'm as surprised as anyone that Ben-Hur is an amazing movie. While it doesn't have the amazing acting of Heston and Boyd, and the chariot scene isn't quite as good (possibly cause I'd seen the original first), it does have enough of its own qualities to dwarf the original. The characters are much more firmly fleshed out and believable. Messala isn't a mystery douche, Judah isn't too perfect. They both have very believable character arcs and fall into rivalry much more naturally. Judah's wife plays an important role in the narrative instead that squicky "I'll free my slave by marrying her" scene. And even Jesus is more of a character, so that his influence fits much more naturally into the story and you actually feel the grandeur you are supposed to when he's up on the cross. It feels like the natural climax of the story and not an afterthought.
People are acting like the original is an untouchable epic. But it came from a book originally, and as epic as Charlton Heston's acting and that chariot race are, the dilemma of how to balance old testament justice and new testament forgiveness, and how it affects the lives of believable characters, is so much more epic. And the original muddles that a bit in ways this film nails.
"It has no big name actors" critics whine. Even though it got actual people of color to play Israelis and even Jesus. You know, that thing we complain about when we fuck it up 99 times out of 100.
#210: Diabolique
One of two films I saved for the month of October, as once again I watch a horror movie every night with my friends. Everybody really enjoyed this one. It's more of a Hitchcock movie than the horror we're used to, but as such it's a lot smarter. We also appreciated its meme potential ("I'll be totally naked this time tomorrow"/"this is the downfall of rome") which is surprising for a 50s movie. Granted, I felt you could probably trim 30 minutes off of it. Still, fine movie.
#235: Ip Man
I really want to like this movie. The action is better than the other Kung Fu movies on my top 250. It has a subtle combination of wire-work and realism that make hits very impactful, and the pacing lets the audience really appreciate the skill in each fight. The story is a biopic for Ip Man, the teacher of Bruce Lee. Except that it's not, because everything is a complete fabrication. It wouldn't be the only movie I love that is total bullshit. The Wind Rises is. But with The Wind Rises, the focus is on the kind of story the director wanted to tell. With Ip Man, the focus is on the story the chinese government didn't want told. You see in this period of Ip Man's life, he was with the Kuomintang fighting the communists. We can't allow a movie about that, so instead he's fighting the Japanese. In forced fighting tournaments. I really hope that Ip Man 2 retains the quality movie making while also not needing to be a disgusting censored piece of shit.
One of two films I saved for the month of October, as once again I watch a horror movie every night with my friends. Everybody really enjoyed this one. It's more of a Hitchcock movie than the horror we're used to, but as such it's a lot smarter. We also appreciated its meme potential ("I'll be totally naked this time tomorrow"/"this is the downfall of rome") which is surprising for a 50s movie. Granted, I felt you could probably trim 30 minutes off of it. Still, fine movie.
#235: Ip Man
I really want to like this movie. The action is better than the other Kung Fu movies on my top 250. It has a subtle combination of wire-work and realism that make hits very impactful, and the pacing lets the audience really appreciate the skill in each fight. The story is a biopic for Ip Man, the teacher of Bruce Lee. Except that it's not, because everything is a complete fabrication. It wouldn't be the only movie I love that is total bullshit. The Wind Rises is. But with The Wind Rises, the focus is on the kind of story the director wanted to tell. With Ip Man, the focus is on the story the chinese government didn't want told. You see in this period of Ip Man's life, he was with the Kuomintang fighting the communists. We can't allow a movie about that, so instead he's fighting the Japanese. In forced fighting tournaments. I really hope that Ip Man 2 retains the quality movie making while also not needing to be a disgusting censored piece of shit.
One thing that's new since the start of my project is that Rotten Tomatoes actually has a competent top 100 now. Instead of being topped by movies with 2 good reviews, there is now Bayesian weighting in place. I've been binging some of the "best" movies of 2016 and it's been pretty rewarding. Watching Hell or High Water (another 10/10), Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and Sing Street in one week made for a pretty damn good week. I started thinking, damn, are my tastes changing more toward Oscar films? So I looked up Oscar predictions for this year and instead of being any of these movies, it's just a bunch of bullshit I've never heard of.
I honestly think that making an Oscar film is just as much of a shallow cash grab as making a blockbuster. They are on average just as trite, but at least the blockbuster might have a few fight scenes to keep me from being bored. Step 1: Pretend to give a shit. What's an ISSUE that it won't be divisive to take a stance on because it happened years ago... how about priests molesting children. Nobody likes that. Make a movie about it and it shows that you care more about making just money, and also the voters go for this kind of thing. Step 2: Have nothing compelling about your movie at all so that the actors really have to work with what they've got. The Oscars are ultimately a celebration of actors, so this will increase your chances. Step 3: Spend little money on production and advertising. Step 4: Lobby aggressively behind closed doors to get nominated. When you get nominated, people will flock to see your movie (god knows the voters won't) and it will be like you spent 100 million on advertising. Winning is of little consequence. At this point you made money.
So now for a double feature of such films (with the King yet to come)
#238: The Help
A black movie with multiple oscar nominations and even a win. That's exactly what we need again now, right? If something exactly like this film suddenly came out and got the same recognition in next year's oscars, would all be right in the world? Blacks were snubbed in a year that saw the release of Straight Outta Compton, but a white savior movie, that's the one you give the recognition to (and if this list is any indication, still remember fondly). I remember sitting there 30 minutes into this movie and thinking, this has to be a real story, right? The true story about a book written? Well, there is a book... from 2009. And even in that book the main character is the white woman writing a book to help the poor black women who didn't write books themselves back in the 60s, because she's the only white woman enlightened enough to not be a stupid housewife. I wonder why 60 agents rejected the original novel. I guess if they had less faith in the American people, they'd have made bank. So the movie was okay.
#239: The Imitation Game
People have been quick to point out how inaccurate this film was, but I'm more interested in its consistently dumb writing. A scene early on where a man introduces himself as being from MI6 and a character accusingly says "There are only 5 branches of military intelligence" sets the standard for the whole thing. And yet, I think this a really important movie. Maybe not the way the makers thought. Or the way anyone watching will think. But to me. See, back then Turing was persecuted for being gay. Now it'd be for being autistic, something the movie doesn't make explicit (though anachronism is right up its alley), but is super obvious. In a close future, he'd be aborted cause we're working on pre-detection of autism. But Turing was instrumental in winning WW2 and invented computers. And as the movie says, that's better than being normal. It's sure as hell better than being aborted.
I honestly think that making an Oscar film is just as much of a shallow cash grab as making a blockbuster. They are on average just as trite, but at least the blockbuster might have a few fight scenes to keep me from being bored. Step 1: Pretend to give a shit. What's an ISSUE that it won't be divisive to take a stance on because it happened years ago... how about priests molesting children. Nobody likes that. Make a movie about it and it shows that you care more about making just money, and also the voters go for this kind of thing. Step 2: Have nothing compelling about your movie at all so that the actors really have to work with what they've got. The Oscars are ultimately a celebration of actors, so this will increase your chances. Step 3: Spend little money on production and advertising. Step 4: Lobby aggressively behind closed doors to get nominated. When you get nominated, people will flock to see your movie (god knows the voters won't) and it will be like you spent 100 million on advertising. Winning is of little consequence. At this point you made money.
So now for a double feature of such films (with the King yet to come)
#238: The Help
A black movie with multiple oscar nominations and even a win. That's exactly what we need again now, right? If something exactly like this film suddenly came out and got the same recognition in next year's oscars, would all be right in the world? Blacks were snubbed in a year that saw the release of Straight Outta Compton, but a white savior movie, that's the one you give the recognition to (and if this list is any indication, still remember fondly). I remember sitting there 30 minutes into this movie and thinking, this has to be a real story, right? The true story about a book written? Well, there is a book... from 2009. And even in that book the main character is the white woman writing a book to help the poor black women who didn't write books themselves back in the 60s, because she's the only white woman enlightened enough to not be a stupid housewife. I wonder why 60 agents rejected the original novel. I guess if they had less faith in the American people, they'd have made bank. So the movie was okay.
#239: The Imitation Game
People have been quick to point out how inaccurate this film was, but I'm more interested in its consistently dumb writing. A scene early on where a man introduces himself as being from MI6 and a character accusingly says "There are only 5 branches of military intelligence" sets the standard for the whole thing. And yet, I think this a really important movie. Maybe not the way the makers thought. Or the way anyone watching will think. But to me. See, back then Turing was persecuted for being gay. Now it'd be for being autistic, something the movie doesn't make explicit (though anachronism is right up its alley), but is super obvious. In a close future, he'd be aborted cause we're working on pre-detection of autism. But Turing was instrumental in winning WW2 and invented computers. And as the movie says, that's better than being normal. It's sure as hell better than being aborted.
Last edited:
I love film, and usually I end up in a theatre chair more often than I want. Will post my thoughts on films just watched (in theatres.)
The Girl On The Train (dir. Tate Taylor)
- Not gonna lie, I was a little biased on this film (because Emily Blunt <3), but overall it was okay at best. Some people say it's a "discount Gone Girl", it kind of is. The story was too dragged down, and even though it almost followed the book (ugh from London to New York changes!), it wasn't executed properly. Some of the performances in the film were amazing (Emily Blunt <3, she needs better films :[), but I'd say it's a guilty pleasure film, watchable when it appears on cable TV. Wasn't a fan of the book, wasn't a fan of this one either. (6.5/10)
Birth of A Nation (dir. Nate Parker)
- Outside of the hate the man's getting because of his recent events, I don't understand why it was bought for $17.5 million at Sundance. A little too overhyped, maybe sabotaged. But the film overall is decent. A lot of the film's execution and narrative seems wavy and fluctuates, but what it does produce is impact and power. The message it brings is really impacting and quite emotional, especially around the end. He has promise as a director, but occasionally the camera flickers too much on his character. Overall, it's a promising film, but the execution: not quite. Still watchable though. (7/10)
The Girl On The Train (dir. Tate Taylor)
- Not gonna lie, I was a little biased on this film (because Emily Blunt <3), but overall it was okay at best. Some people say it's a "discount Gone Girl", it kind of is. The story was too dragged down, and even though it almost followed the book (ugh from London to New York changes!), it wasn't executed properly. Some of the performances in the film were amazing (Emily Blunt <3, she needs better films :[), but I'd say it's a guilty pleasure film, watchable when it appears on cable TV. Wasn't a fan of the book, wasn't a fan of this one either. (6.5/10)
Birth of A Nation (dir. Nate Parker)
- Outside of the hate the man's getting because of his recent events, I don't understand why it was bought for $17.5 million at Sundance. A little too overhyped, maybe sabotaged. But the film overall is decent. A lot of the film's execution and narrative seems wavy and fluctuates, but what it does produce is impact and power. The message it brings is really impacting and quite emotional, especially around the end. He has promise as a director, but occasionally the camera flickers too much on his character. Overall, it's a promising film, but the execution: not quite. Still watchable though. (7/10)
Man From Nowhere
Thought this was going to be a modern kind-fu movie but instead it turned out to be this sort of crime thriller I didn't expect. As far as plot goes it's pretty generic, ex special ops hunts down evil child slave business because reasons. But that's completely fine considering that I'm pretty sure that's a plot everyone would actually get behind. The acting was basically a Drive-esque lead that says maybe 30 lines all film but he carries the role well. The little girl rocked out though, maybe I'm less annoyed with child actors when the language isn't in my native tongue, maybe she was just really good. If you want a slow film that suddenly ramps up and want to see bad people murdered odd day give it a go.
Thought this was going to be a modern kind-fu movie but instead it turned out to be this sort of crime thriller I didn't expect. As far as plot goes it's pretty generic, ex special ops hunts down evil child slave business because reasons. But that's completely fine considering that I'm pretty sure that's a plot everyone would actually get behind. The acting was basically a Drive-esque lead that says maybe 30 lines all film but he carries the role well. The little girl rocked out though, maybe I'm less annoyed with child actors when the language isn't in my native tongue, maybe she was just really good. If you want a slow film that suddenly ramps up and want to see bad people murdered odd day give it a go.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Man From Nowhere is fantastic but I fell in LOVE with that directors follow up No Tears for the Dead. No Tears for the Dead had some of the best action sequencing and cinematography I've ever seen. The plot is not as tight as Man From Nowhere but I loved it to bits anyway.
Two movies resembling older movies
#241: Roman Holiday
This movie reminds me a lot of It Happened One Night. Both involve rich girls who run away, a reporter who just wants to make a story out of it, and how they fall in love. Really all that It Happened has going for it is its legendary director, and nobody is perfect all the time. Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn are way better actors with much more chemistry, there isn't any weird walls of Jericho shit, and the title isn't stupid. Rome is a better setting for this sort of thing anyway than... absolutely nowhere as was the case before. I guess it's not perfectly paced, since the movie doesn't really start until an hour in, but it's not boring either. What really seals the deal is that the ending isn't what you'd expect from the 50s studio machine.
#243: A Fistful of Dollars
I shouldn't need to tell anyone that this movie steals from Yojimbo. But I'm surprised at just how much is stolen. It's almost character for character, plot-point for plot-point. Is it done any better? Sort of... often-times... Sergio Leone is a master at what he does and so is Ennio Morricone. But there's a pretty awful machine gun scene (all the riders get shot but none of their horses do, it's also very drawn out so that you don't understand why no one shoots back). I think if I want to see this story again, I'll rewatch Yojimbo. And if I want this kind of western movie, I'll watch The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
#241: Roman Holiday
This movie reminds me a lot of It Happened One Night. Both involve rich girls who run away, a reporter who just wants to make a story out of it, and how they fall in love. Really all that It Happened has going for it is its legendary director, and nobody is perfect all the time. Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn are way better actors with much more chemistry, there isn't any weird walls of Jericho shit, and the title isn't stupid. Rome is a better setting for this sort of thing anyway than... absolutely nowhere as was the case before. I guess it's not perfectly paced, since the movie doesn't really start until an hour in, but it's not boring either. What really seals the deal is that the ending isn't what you'd expect from the 50s studio machine.
#243: A Fistful of Dollars
I shouldn't need to tell anyone that this movie steals from Yojimbo. But I'm surprised at just how much is stolen. It's almost character for character, plot-point for plot-point. Is it done any better? Sort of... often-times... Sergio Leone is a master at what he does and so is Ennio Morricone. But there's a pretty awful machine gun scene (all the riders get shot but none of their horses do, it's also very drawn out so that you don't understand why no one shoots back). I think if I want to see this story again, I'll rewatch Yojimbo. And if I want this kind of western movie, I'll watch The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
On Saturday I watched both American Honey and The Girl on the Train.
The Girl on the Train: 4.3/10 (read the book instead of watching this) - Having read the source material I can confirm that it is a god-awful adaptation of the book and just further acts as proof that Dreamworks are a terrible studio for non-animated films (and even then they are very much hit-or-miss in the respect that 90% of their animated films are either extremely good or extremely bad. In the book the characters are British people who aren't particularly rich whereas in the movie featured some rich Americans alongside the main character being a British actress who was super misplaced among a load of American actors/actresses. They handled the eviction completely wrong, and the final product on the whole is just really untrue to its incredible source material. It just makes it feel incredibly separated from reality and is almost like Dreamworks think that movies need to be about rich Americans in order for Americans to understand/appreciate it, which I know a) isn't true and b) is a mindset that actively makes movies worse. And when I say worse I mean much worse. Great source material addapted horribly 101.
American Honey: 6.1/10 (watch if you have the time and are within a 18/19 to 25-ish y/o demographic) - The first 40-50 minutes of this movie were really boring, but it picked up once the ball got properly rolling and it was a very interesting case study on what life must be like a character in the main character's situation. It really shows how well Channel 4 and the British Film Institute are able to manage these types of films--it felt very spontaneous with regards to the way that the plot progressed--and I think it was a pretty good film on the whole. My key issue with it, however, lies in the three sex scenes present during the film. While I understand why sex was included and that it fits in with the nature of the characters/their situation, I think that including three prolonged sex scenes was a really poor directional decision as opposed to just implying them. I had to divert my eyes simply because I didn't want to watch them, and all three of them dragged on too. All in all it was pretty ok, but it just took way too long to get going and gave sex too much screen time.
The Girl on the Train: 4.3/10 (read the book instead of watching this) - Having read the source material I can confirm that it is a god-awful adaptation of the book and just further acts as proof that Dreamworks are a terrible studio for non-animated films (and even then they are very much hit-or-miss in the respect that 90% of their animated films are either extremely good or extremely bad. In the book the characters are British people who aren't particularly rich whereas in the movie featured some rich Americans alongside the main character being a British actress who was super misplaced among a load of American actors/actresses. They handled the eviction completely wrong, and the final product on the whole is just really untrue to its incredible source material. It just makes it feel incredibly separated from reality and is almost like Dreamworks think that movies need to be about rich Americans in order for Americans to understand/appreciate it, which I know a) isn't true and b) is a mindset that actively makes movies worse. And when I say worse I mean much worse. Great source material addapted horribly 101.
American Honey: 6.1/10 (watch if you have the time and are within a 18/19 to 25-ish y/o demographic) - The first 40-50 minutes of this movie were really boring, but it picked up once the ball got properly rolling and it was a very interesting case study on what life must be like a character in the main character's situation. It really shows how well Channel 4 and the British Film Institute are able to manage these types of films--it felt very spontaneous with regards to the way that the plot progressed--and I think it was a pretty good film on the whole. My key issue with it, however, lies in the three sex scenes present during the film. While I understand why sex was included and that it fits in with the nature of the characters/their situation, I think that including three prolonged sex scenes was a really poor directional decision as opposed to just implying them. I had to divert my eyes simply because I didn't want to watch them, and all three of them dragged on too. All in all it was pretty ok, but it just took way too long to get going and gave sex too much screen time.
The last two I watched on my own
Far From Heaven
Todd Haynes is one of my favorite directors working today (Carol and Safe are both phenomenal and two of my favorite films of all time), but I wasn't really feeling this one. It was a tad too melodramatic at times and while the cinematography was gorgeous and Julianne Moore delivers another great performance that's nearly on par with her performance in Haynes' Safe, I couldn't help find the film a bit tedious at times.
American Honey
Absolutely magical, brazen, and mesmerizing. While I can understand some people's criticism for the film's lengthy running time or its meandering nature, I was just so enthralled by it. The entire ensemble cast delivered strong performances (Sasha Lane especially) and Andrea Arnold really humanizes this band of misfits and made me feel empathy for characters that aren't really the most likable people. On top of that, the soundtrack was amazing and the cinematography was just breathtaking. Definitely my favorite movie of the year with Sasha Lane as one of my favorite performances (Isabelle Huppert in Elle still holds the top spot for me. At least until I can see if Kristen Stewart can best her with Personal Shopper).
Far From Heaven
Todd Haynes is one of my favorite directors working today (Carol and Safe are both phenomenal and two of my favorite films of all time), but I wasn't really feeling this one. It was a tad too melodramatic at times and while the cinematography was gorgeous and Julianne Moore delivers another great performance that's nearly on par with her performance in Haynes' Safe, I couldn't help find the film a bit tedious at times.
American Honey
Absolutely magical, brazen, and mesmerizing. While I can understand some people's criticism for the film's lengthy running time or its meandering nature, I was just so enthralled by it. The entire ensemble cast delivered strong performances (Sasha Lane especially) and Andrea Arnold really humanizes this band of misfits and made me feel empathy for characters that aren't really the most likable people. On top of that, the soundtrack was amazing and the cinematography was just breathtaking. Definitely my favorite movie of the year with Sasha Lane as one of my favorite performances (Isabelle Huppert in Elle still holds the top spot for me. At least until I can see if Kristen Stewart can best her with Personal Shopper).
Get ready for a big ratings post ayyy
so I haven't logged all the films I've seen since my last rating post (April 28th) but I'll try to remember as many as possible. As you'll see, I haven't seen that many films this year, due to A levels (I got ABB btw, not exactly ideal but somehow enough to get into my insurance).
Firstly, I went to the London Film Festival this month n saw 7 films in total. I wrote up reviews for the first four, which were featured in my Uni's newspaper (I'm a fresher and so this is the first time my work has been published in a professional non-magazine, this one in particular being voted for as the UK's best student-run publication. Basically I'm moving up in the world!)
Last on the agenda are films I've seen in cinemas this year since my last update (ranked from best to worst):
2016 has been a particularly shit year for films so far, and that's taking into account the fact that I've attempted to avoid a bunch of blockbusters that 2016 has spewed at me. I'm sure this year can get better, but it's running out of time.
so I haven't logged all the films I've seen since my last rating post (April 28th) but I'll try to remember as many as possible. As you'll see, I haven't seen that many films this year, due to A levels (I got ABB btw, not exactly ideal but somehow enough to get into my insurance).
Firstly, I went to the London Film Festival this month n saw 7 films in total. I wrote up reviews for the first four, which were featured in my Uni's newspaper (I'm a fresher and so this is the first time my work has been published in a professional non-magazine, this one in particular being voted for as the UK's best student-run publication. Basically I'm moving up in the world!)
The Handmaiden - ★★★★
The Handmaiden is the screening chosen for the London Film Festival’s ‘Dare’ Gala, and it’s not difficult to see why - it boasts the twisting plots, inventive camerawork, and very, very explicit set-pieces expected of Park Chan-wook (Oldboy). As a bare outline, the film follows Sook-Hee (Kim Tai-Ri), a Korean embarking as a handmaiden to a Japanese heiress (Kim Min-hee), who’s set to marry the rich Count Fujiwara (Jung-woo Ha), much to Sook-Hee’s displeasure. It’s a film better viewed with minimal information, such are the intricacies of a tightly-woven plot that manages to hold together despite some third-act redundancies. The visually arresting imagery and gorgeous production design offers authenticity to a 1930s Korean setting, while its script balances dark humour and intense uneasiness with aplomb. Wildly entertaining throughout, and gorgeous to look at, The Handmaiden is a film that will engross all but the squirmish.
Elle - ★★
Sharing The Handmaiden’s unease, if not its ferocious enjoyability, Paul Verhoeven’s (Total Recall) Elle is an odd blend of jet-black humour and unsettling subject matter. Centering around rape, and how Isabelle Huppert’s titular character deals with this experience as the victim, the film lugs by aimlessly, having not much to say about its weighty premise. Instead, Verhoeven’s primary ambition is to shock the viewer, and while in the past these controversies feel earned, here it’s as manufactured as Elle herself. There’s a clear intent to contradict stereotypes that would be associated with a rape victim, but this is clumsily-handled to the point where Elle feels fake and erratic. Huppert herself gives a strong performance, and the script fares better when favouring a macabre comedic tone, but it’s difficult to care about any of the thinly-written characters, especially when there’s so many to keep track of.
Manchester By the Sea - ★★★★★
Despite how unassuming a film Kenneth Lonergan’s latest effort is, it’s generating an increasing amount of Oscar buzz, and for good reason: Manchester by the Sea is one of the most mature examinations of the human condition in quite some time. The film follows Lee (Casey Affleck), a handyman forced to parent his nephew (Lucas Hedges) after his brother’s (Kyle Chandler) untimely death. As Lee experiences the trepidations of being a parent, his past unravels via various flashbacks seamlessly interwoven with the narrative. The film feels small, owing to its understated camerawork, yet still astonishes - a powerful revelation halfway through sheds new, brutal light on Lee’s restricted mannerisms. Affleck, like the rest of the cast, executes his character perfectly - its a reserved, heartbreaking performance, aided by a script that refuses to manipulate. For all the potential for Manchester by the Sea to become cloying tedium, Lonergan has created a mellow masterpiece.
Una - ★★★
Benedict Andrews’ first foray into film, Una is an admirable effort - a film to be appreciated rather than enjoyed. Adapted from a playwright, Blackbird, the film delves into the subject of pedophilia, where grown-up Una (Rooney Mara) seeks out her tormentor (Ben Mendelsohn) in order to gain closure. While the film’s themes are mature, its emotional complexity cannot quite match, hampered by a staginess inherent due to its playwright roots. Yet in fleeting moments, the dynamic between Una and her pedophile is intriguing, and motives are left juicily unclear - a choice that will frustrate as much as please. Mendelsohn is reliably excellent in an uncomfortable role to pull off, but the script relies on Mara, who only excels when not phoning in a shoddy English accent. The filmic choices on display are equally daring and confused, creating a tonally jarring film that maintains attention, despite only being sporadically interesting.
It's Only the End of the World - ★★★★
Xavier Dolan's previous film, Mommy, managed to make me cry based on portraying an intense relationship that was a more melodramatic version of my own relationship with my mother at the time (minus the oedipus complex). Just La Fin de Monde (It's Only the End of the World) achieves the same in relation to my brother. Framed with incessant close-ups, the film is jarring and potent, breaking free from the shackles of its playwright roots to become a daring and cinematic experience. An over-the-top flashback sequence aside, the film is genuine and heartbreaking, with Vincent Cassell stealing the show. Thank God cinema has Xavier Dolan, young enough to ignore conventions and take risks, mature enough to produce a film of this quality.
Nocturnal Animals - ★★★★★
As stylish a film as you'd expect from Tom Ford, Nocturnal Animals is an incredible insight into the pursuit of revenge. Technically astounding, and boasting an engrossing script and some terrific performances, the films hooks you in early with a highway scene that rivals Sicario's border crossing sequence in terms of intensity, and then doesn't let up. The less said about the plot the better, but the film is impressive in every department, and may very well end up becoming a cult classic - or even a downright classic - over the years.
Trespass Against Us - ★★
It may have plenty of heart, but Trespass Against Us suffers due to a dull, standard script, characters that are poorly fleshed out, a lack of excitement or momentum, and a forgettable plot.
The Handmaiden is the screening chosen for the London Film Festival’s ‘Dare’ Gala, and it’s not difficult to see why - it boasts the twisting plots, inventive camerawork, and very, very explicit set-pieces expected of Park Chan-wook (Oldboy). As a bare outline, the film follows Sook-Hee (Kim Tai-Ri), a Korean embarking as a handmaiden to a Japanese heiress (Kim Min-hee), who’s set to marry the rich Count Fujiwara (Jung-woo Ha), much to Sook-Hee’s displeasure. It’s a film better viewed with minimal information, such are the intricacies of a tightly-woven plot that manages to hold together despite some third-act redundancies. The visually arresting imagery and gorgeous production design offers authenticity to a 1930s Korean setting, while its script balances dark humour and intense uneasiness with aplomb. Wildly entertaining throughout, and gorgeous to look at, The Handmaiden is a film that will engross all but the squirmish.
Elle - ★★
Sharing The Handmaiden’s unease, if not its ferocious enjoyability, Paul Verhoeven’s (Total Recall) Elle is an odd blend of jet-black humour and unsettling subject matter. Centering around rape, and how Isabelle Huppert’s titular character deals with this experience as the victim, the film lugs by aimlessly, having not much to say about its weighty premise. Instead, Verhoeven’s primary ambition is to shock the viewer, and while in the past these controversies feel earned, here it’s as manufactured as Elle herself. There’s a clear intent to contradict stereotypes that would be associated with a rape victim, but this is clumsily-handled to the point where Elle feels fake and erratic. Huppert herself gives a strong performance, and the script fares better when favouring a macabre comedic tone, but it’s difficult to care about any of the thinly-written characters, especially when there’s so many to keep track of.
Manchester By the Sea - ★★★★★
Despite how unassuming a film Kenneth Lonergan’s latest effort is, it’s generating an increasing amount of Oscar buzz, and for good reason: Manchester by the Sea is one of the most mature examinations of the human condition in quite some time. The film follows Lee (Casey Affleck), a handyman forced to parent his nephew (Lucas Hedges) after his brother’s (Kyle Chandler) untimely death. As Lee experiences the trepidations of being a parent, his past unravels via various flashbacks seamlessly interwoven with the narrative. The film feels small, owing to its understated camerawork, yet still astonishes - a powerful revelation halfway through sheds new, brutal light on Lee’s restricted mannerisms. Affleck, like the rest of the cast, executes his character perfectly - its a reserved, heartbreaking performance, aided by a script that refuses to manipulate. For all the potential for Manchester by the Sea to become cloying tedium, Lonergan has created a mellow masterpiece.
Una - ★★★
Benedict Andrews’ first foray into film, Una is an admirable effort - a film to be appreciated rather than enjoyed. Adapted from a playwright, Blackbird, the film delves into the subject of pedophilia, where grown-up Una (Rooney Mara) seeks out her tormentor (Ben Mendelsohn) in order to gain closure. While the film’s themes are mature, its emotional complexity cannot quite match, hampered by a staginess inherent due to its playwright roots. Yet in fleeting moments, the dynamic between Una and her pedophile is intriguing, and motives are left juicily unclear - a choice that will frustrate as much as please. Mendelsohn is reliably excellent in an uncomfortable role to pull off, but the script relies on Mara, who only excels when not phoning in a shoddy English accent. The filmic choices on display are equally daring and confused, creating a tonally jarring film that maintains attention, despite only being sporadically interesting.
It's Only the End of the World - ★★★★
Xavier Dolan's previous film, Mommy, managed to make me cry based on portraying an intense relationship that was a more melodramatic version of my own relationship with my mother at the time (minus the oedipus complex). Just La Fin de Monde (It's Only the End of the World) achieves the same in relation to my brother. Framed with incessant close-ups, the film is jarring and potent, breaking free from the shackles of its playwright roots to become a daring and cinematic experience. An over-the-top flashback sequence aside, the film is genuine and heartbreaking, with Vincent Cassell stealing the show. Thank God cinema has Xavier Dolan, young enough to ignore conventions and take risks, mature enough to produce a film of this quality.
Nocturnal Animals - ★★★★★
As stylish a film as you'd expect from Tom Ford, Nocturnal Animals is an incredible insight into the pursuit of revenge. Technically astounding, and boasting an engrossing script and some terrific performances, the films hooks you in early with a highway scene that rivals Sicario's border crossing sequence in terms of intensity, and then doesn't let up. The less said about the plot the better, but the film is impressive in every department, and may very well end up becoming a cult classic - or even a downright classic - over the years.
Trespass Against Us - ★★
It may have plenty of heart, but Trespass Against Us suffers due to a dull, standard script, characters that are poorly fleshed out, a lack of excitement or momentum, and a forgettable plot.
Last on the agenda are films I've seen in cinemas this year since my last update (ranked from best to worst):
Swiss Army Man - ★★★★★
A welcome breath of fresh air in a year steeped with tired blockbusters, Swiss Army Man is the farting corpse movie we've all been waiting for. Managing to make the concept of flatulence and masturbating profound, the film is genuinely terrific, and incredibly funny. It's also a film with dark, melancholic undertones, hidden under an array of visually imaginative set-pieces. The editing and direction are both sharp, Radcliffe gives his best performance in any film ever, and the film contains one of the best kiss scenes of the century. Truly magnificent.
The Nice Guys - ★★★★
Ryan Gosling can do no wrong, and he's the best aspect of this film that contains many great aspects. The writing is clever, the plot genuinely surprising, and it's the most fun I've had at the cinema all year.
I, Daniel Blake - ★★★★
A vital film, Ken Loach exposes the exploits and exploitations of the people behind the British Welfare System. It's hardly a nuanced film, the approach being both brutally blunt and brutally obvious, but it's still a frustrating, emotional watch.
The Jungle Book - ★★★
The plot's a bit naff but damn it looks good.
The Accountant - ★★★
The plot is ridiculous, the plot is predictable, but the plot is also very enjoyable. It's not as half as clever as it thinks it is and huge chunks feel superfluous, but there's nothing wrong with this type of surprise-B-movie once in a while.
Louis Theroux: My Scientology Movie - ★★
A documentary that fails to really give insight into its main point of interest, this comes across more as a Theroux vanity project. It's humorous, but not really befitting of its subject matter, and very, very slight.
Tale of Tales - ★★
Beautiful to look at, but the plot is drip-fed in images that are designed for the sake of being exactly that: beautiful to look at, and not much more.
X-Men Apocalypse - ★★
A huge disappointment considering First Class is one of my favourite superhero movies and Days of Future Past was very enjoyable. The film degrades into destruction porn and immediately desensitizes the audience from anything that occurs on screen. Isaac is wasted, and there's only so many times you can repeat Magneto's character development.
Sausage Party - ★★
Shocking for the sake of shocking, Sausage Party isn't very funny, is half-hearted in its satirical approach, is lazily animated, and isn't nearly as explicit as it should be (go big or go home).
The BFG - ★★
God the score for this film was horrendous, incessant and whining and.. anyway, aside from the score, there's not much to like about this film. The pacing is off, the child actor is awful, the plot is uninteresting and not very emotive. No thanks.
Suicide Squad - ★
What do you mean a film needs a plot? Surely ham-fisting in some ill-fitted pop songs will make ourproduct film trendy and fun for the kids? I hated this from start to finish, which funnily enough were the only two signs of a structure to this film.
A welcome breath of fresh air in a year steeped with tired blockbusters, Swiss Army Man is the farting corpse movie we've all been waiting for. Managing to make the concept of flatulence and masturbating profound, the film is genuinely terrific, and incredibly funny. It's also a film with dark, melancholic undertones, hidden under an array of visually imaginative set-pieces. The editing and direction are both sharp, Radcliffe gives his best performance in any film ever, and the film contains one of the best kiss scenes of the century. Truly magnificent.
The Nice Guys - ★★★★
Ryan Gosling can do no wrong, and he's the best aspect of this film that contains many great aspects. The writing is clever, the plot genuinely surprising, and it's the most fun I've had at the cinema all year.
I, Daniel Blake - ★★★★
A vital film, Ken Loach exposes the exploits and exploitations of the people behind the British Welfare System. It's hardly a nuanced film, the approach being both brutally blunt and brutally obvious, but it's still a frustrating, emotional watch.
The Jungle Book - ★★★
The plot's a bit naff but damn it looks good.
The Accountant - ★★★
The plot is ridiculous, the plot is predictable, but the plot is also very enjoyable. It's not as half as clever as it thinks it is and huge chunks feel superfluous, but there's nothing wrong with this type of surprise-B-movie once in a while.
Louis Theroux: My Scientology Movie - ★★
A documentary that fails to really give insight into its main point of interest, this comes across more as a Theroux vanity project. It's humorous, but not really befitting of its subject matter, and very, very slight.
Tale of Tales - ★★
Beautiful to look at, but the plot is drip-fed in images that are designed for the sake of being exactly that: beautiful to look at, and not much more.
X-Men Apocalypse - ★★
A huge disappointment considering First Class is one of my favourite superhero movies and Days of Future Past was very enjoyable. The film degrades into destruction porn and immediately desensitizes the audience from anything that occurs on screen. Isaac is wasted, and there's only so many times you can repeat Magneto's character development.
Sausage Party - ★★
Shocking for the sake of shocking, Sausage Party isn't very funny, is half-hearted in its satirical approach, is lazily animated, and isn't nearly as explicit as it should be (go big or go home).
The BFG - ★★
God the score for this film was horrendous, incessant and whining and.. anyway, aside from the score, there's not much to like about this film. The pacing is off, the child actor is awful, the plot is uninteresting and not very emotive. No thanks.
Suicide Squad - ★
What do you mean a film needs a plot? Surely ham-fisting in some ill-fitted pop songs will make our
2016 has been a particularly shit year for films so far, and that's taking into account the fact that I've attempted to avoid a bunch of blockbusters that 2016 has spewed at me. I'm sure this year can get better, but it's running out of time.
You're not watching the right movies. Maybe some won't come out for you until 2017, I dunno. I don't wanna reveal my top 10 until after I've seen the Oscar noms, and you've already seen (and liked) Swiss Army Man and The Nice Guys, so might I recommend Sing Street?
#221: Jaws
The second movie that I saved for October. We really had to wrangle one of our friends into seeing it for some reason. This guy, who isn't usually like this, was convinced that he knew exactly what kind of movie it was and that it didn't interest him whatsoever. So of course we used the argument that every film can actually surprise you when you see it yourself from start to finish. Ironically, this film didn't. In spite of never seeing it, or even being in and out of a room while other people saw it, I pretty much knew every story beat in sequential order. Maybe that just speaks to the legendary quality of the film. As such I don't have much to say about it. The highlight of the show are the three main characters. There are blockbusters that are more fun and horror movies that are scarier, but as a combination it's very well put together.
#245: Fanny and Alexander
I've adored three Ingmar Bergman movies so far. I wouldn't accuse any of them of getting right to the point, but being roughly 90 minutes probably elevated them as films above a lot of other talking dramas. And I'm sorry to say that I didn't really like the 3 hour Fanny and Alexander. It's a film that suffers from the same thing as The Deer Hunter, dedicating a whole first hour to a bunch of people just celebrating something, like a high-production version of someone's home video. There is a method to this madness, but at the same time we see very little Alexander in that hour and we don't even know who Fanny is (presumably she is one of two blond girls, but we only find out which one over an hour in). In fact, Fanny is pretty superfluous throughout. I think she said "no" once, but that's the only dialogue of hers I vaguely remember.
I have sort of a problem with the evil stepfather character. He has all the trappings of an evil stepparent. Warning lights go off when he asks his family to move in with no possessions (had they not read Jane Eyre?), and we're told by word of mouth that he has threatened legal action if the family tries to escape him. But he never DOES anything bad, and we only sympathize with the protagonists because we wouldn't want to live an ascetic lifestyle either. And for this, the guy dies a gruesome death.
The biggest difficulty I had with approaching Fanny and Alexander is choosing which version to watch. I always pick the truest version of a film, at least for first viewing. Sometimes that's the original theatrical release (such as with Gladiator or Amadeus). Sometimes it's a recut that fixes a bastardized version (such as Once Upon a Time in America or Metropolis). Fanny and Alexander was first released in theaters as a 3 hour film, but that was cut down from a 5 hour tv miniseries. Ingmar Bergman said that the 5 hour version was the true film. But is it a film? It was eventually shown in theaters. But if you took any 12 episode anime, say Erased, edited it a bit, and called it a movie (which would be shorter than 5 hours), would that be a movie? I don't think anyone stated that the tv version of Das Boot was a movie, though it's the same situation. Is Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog a movie? I know people who say so. Is Read or Die a movie? That's always how I saw it, and I'm too fond of it to exclude it from my top 250. Perhaps Fanny and Alexander is a great tv show (I prefer tv in general) and a mediocre movie. But I'm not obligated for this list to watch a tv show. I sure as FUCK don't want to watch a 5 hour movie (foreshadowing). That sounds like one of the most agonizing things one could possibly do.
#246: The King's Speech
The king of oscar bait movies. Perhaps only Driving Miss Daisy has a worse reputation for not deserving its oscar. Most people would agree that it's not as good as Inception or Toy Story 3, but those were weird, experimental inclusions anyway. Most people remember this as stealing the oscar from The Social Network. Yet that movie isn't on the top 250. And The King's Speech made a fuck ton of money, so of course movie makers would want to emulate it. But what is worth emulating? It has its moments. It has Geoffrey Rush, that's a boon. But it's a ridiculously disneyfied version of history that actually sort of matters. Not that a king stuttered, like, who cares. But it tries to make a lot of people look better by altering, sometimes in 180 degrees, their stances and actions regarding the growing threat of Hitler. It eschews actual real life character development just so that it would be less likely to offend anyone. And saying fuck a whole fucking lot doesn't make it an edgier film to make up for this.
#248: Paris, Texas
An eccentric movie that I think got mistaken for being artsier than it actually is, when it reality its weirdness stems from foreigners making an American film. Actors are either bad (especially the child), foreign, or C-listers. Though it's the C-listers that actually improve the movie. I like Dean Stockwell and Harry Dean Stanton a lot, and this movie was their moment to shine. The big problem with the movie is that it gets incredibly slow actually leading up the end. The last hour ditches Dean Stockwell and is mostly characters talking slowly, pausing, being listless, and long stretches of not saying anything at all. The final scene lasts 20 god damn minutes. The film that started well got pretty agonizing by the end, and that's not cause the ending is bad (though it's not compelling either).
Last edited:
Anyone else feel that the best part of Doctor Strange was the fact that it set up Thor 3 to be an "Avengers Movie" similar to Civil War?
I thought the best part of Doctor Strange was everything but now I have reason to believe that there will be a best part at all to Thor 3. Though it's not going to be as much an "Avengers" movie as a Thor/Strange/Loki buddy movie so that Strange doesn't have just 1 movie under his belt before all hell breaks loose.
DOCTOR STRANGE
4/5
http://www.edgarreviews.co.uk/doctor-strange/ if u wanna read it on a page that looks cool (and give my website views!!)
Benedict Cumberbatch is an arrogant, lovable genius who solves problems against seemingly insurmountable odds. No, he’s not Sherlock, but Doctor Stephen Strange, one of the more barmy entries in Marvel Studios’ roster of superheroes. After suffering an accident due to his own arrogance, his job as a renowned neurosurgeon is put out of action. To return to work, Strange strives to restore the use of his hands, finally stumbling across a mysterious ‘cult’ based in Nepal…
There, with the aid of Tilda Swinton’s ‘The Ancient One’, an enigmatic figure with dark secrets, he trains his mind, in a rushed but intriguing 20-minute sequence. He’s arrogant and foolish, but his mentors, including Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Mordo and Benedict Wong’s, er, Wong, see his potential. Will he overcome his own hubris to achieve greatness? Do I really even need to ask that question?
Strange’s narrative arc is a familiar one – the fall, the redemption, the shortcomings, the solution – but director Scott Derrickson manages to prevent this flick from becoming another stale offering in the Marvel universe. For one, it does away with the use of technical jargon and scientific explanations, and embraces the mesmerising, nonsensical world of magic while keeping a straight face. Its opening battle, where buildings twist and turn like bloodthirsty cogs, is only a fleeting glance at the world’s potential, and each burst of psychedelic brawling thereafter is intelligently differentiated from one another. It’s a world steeped in preposterous magical concepts of mirror dimensions and astral forms, but it works, because it’s just as believable as any other film in its franchise.
Sadly, with so many otherworldly concepts to get through, Doctor Strange does become bogged down in exposition. It’s still fascinating to listen to, much owing to Tilda Swinton’s reliably excellent delivery, but results in very little time afforded to developing characters such as, say, Mads Mikkelsen’s barely-fleshed-out baddie. It’s disappointing to see his character treated that way when Marvel finally shows a real awareness to its tired formula – the film may have found a cure to third act CGI-heavy explosive showdowns, but weak villains seems to be a recurring problem in need of similar treatment.
Yet when these mind-boggling concepts are put to use, the effects are often astounding. Running up skyscrapers, hopping between continents, reversing time – its visceral, excellent cinema, unique and purposeful, with enough ingenuity to prevent drawing any unearned comparisons to Inception. Further still, there are moments of quiet brilliance that shine through amid the crazed conflicts. A scene that takes place in suspended rain, with lightning sprawling across the screen like a cracked window, is both memorable in imagery, and extremely poignant. It’s sharp, mature writing, that functions as a worthy sendoff and a way to calm the film’s prior breakneck pace.
Oddly, despite the inherent silliness of the film’s ideas, its one of the most sensible Marvel films to date. Derrickson, who has worked beforehand on various horror films such as Sinister, makes clear in the film’s opening scene that there’s a real sense of menace and danger. Tragedy, desperation, and various inner conflicts are dealt with astutely, and Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange is as complex a character as any in the Marvel universe. Perhaps this also serves as reasoning for why the film’s comedic beats aren’t quite so successful, misplaced in almost every scene to give a light-hearted spirit that isn’t needed (save for a terrific exchange between Mikkelsen’s Kaecilius and Cumberbatch’s Strange).
It may not be quite as odd as its namesake, but the film is certainly as imaginative as any Marvel film has dared so far, offering visual splendour, an impressive amount of maturity, and a great character in Doctor Stephen Strange.
So far my Top 10 of the year (UK Release Date) looks like this:
1. Swiss Army Man
2. Nocturnal Animals
3. Anomalisa
4. The Hateful Eight
5. High-Rise
6. The Revenant
7. The Nice Guys
8. Zootopia
9. The Big Short
10. Victoria
So huh, maybe 2016 hasn't been that bad of a year so far (still pales in comparison to 2015). Films that I thought would've made my Top 10 at the start of the year but either disappoint or don't quite break it are:
Spotlight (4 stars)
The Neon Demon (4 stars)
Hail, Caesar! (4 stars)
I, Daniel Blake (3 stars)
I've still got a ton of films on my watchlist and yes, vonFiedler , Sing Street is one of them :P
4/5
http://www.edgarreviews.co.uk/doctor-strange/ if u wanna read it on a page that looks cool (and give my website views!!)
Benedict Cumberbatch is an arrogant, lovable genius who solves problems against seemingly insurmountable odds. No, he’s not Sherlock, but Doctor Stephen Strange, one of the more barmy entries in Marvel Studios’ roster of superheroes. After suffering an accident due to his own arrogance, his job as a renowned neurosurgeon is put out of action. To return to work, Strange strives to restore the use of his hands, finally stumbling across a mysterious ‘cult’ based in Nepal…
There, with the aid of Tilda Swinton’s ‘The Ancient One’, an enigmatic figure with dark secrets, he trains his mind, in a rushed but intriguing 20-minute sequence. He’s arrogant and foolish, but his mentors, including Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Mordo and Benedict Wong’s, er, Wong, see his potential. Will he overcome his own hubris to achieve greatness? Do I really even need to ask that question?
Strange’s narrative arc is a familiar one – the fall, the redemption, the shortcomings, the solution – but director Scott Derrickson manages to prevent this flick from becoming another stale offering in the Marvel universe. For one, it does away with the use of technical jargon and scientific explanations, and embraces the mesmerising, nonsensical world of magic while keeping a straight face. Its opening battle, where buildings twist and turn like bloodthirsty cogs, is only a fleeting glance at the world’s potential, and each burst of psychedelic brawling thereafter is intelligently differentiated from one another. It’s a world steeped in preposterous magical concepts of mirror dimensions and astral forms, but it works, because it’s just as believable as any other film in its franchise.
Sadly, with so many otherworldly concepts to get through, Doctor Strange does become bogged down in exposition. It’s still fascinating to listen to, much owing to Tilda Swinton’s reliably excellent delivery, but results in very little time afforded to developing characters such as, say, Mads Mikkelsen’s barely-fleshed-out baddie. It’s disappointing to see his character treated that way when Marvel finally shows a real awareness to its tired formula – the film may have found a cure to third act CGI-heavy explosive showdowns, but weak villains seems to be a recurring problem in need of similar treatment.
Yet when these mind-boggling concepts are put to use, the effects are often astounding. Running up skyscrapers, hopping between continents, reversing time – its visceral, excellent cinema, unique and purposeful, with enough ingenuity to prevent drawing any unearned comparisons to Inception. Further still, there are moments of quiet brilliance that shine through amid the crazed conflicts. A scene that takes place in suspended rain, with lightning sprawling across the screen like a cracked window, is both memorable in imagery, and extremely poignant. It’s sharp, mature writing, that functions as a worthy sendoff and a way to calm the film’s prior breakneck pace.
Oddly, despite the inherent silliness of the film’s ideas, its one of the most sensible Marvel films to date. Derrickson, who has worked beforehand on various horror films such as Sinister, makes clear in the film’s opening scene that there’s a real sense of menace and danger. Tragedy, desperation, and various inner conflicts are dealt with astutely, and Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange is as complex a character as any in the Marvel universe. Perhaps this also serves as reasoning for why the film’s comedic beats aren’t quite so successful, misplaced in almost every scene to give a light-hearted spirit that isn’t needed (save for a terrific exchange between Mikkelsen’s Kaecilius and Cumberbatch’s Strange).
It may not be quite as odd as its namesake, but the film is certainly as imaginative as any Marvel film has dared so far, offering visual splendour, an impressive amount of maturity, and a great character in Doctor Stephen Strange.
So far my Top 10 of the year (UK Release Date) looks like this:
1. Swiss Army Man
2. Nocturnal Animals
3. Anomalisa
4. The Hateful Eight
5. High-Rise
6. The Revenant
7. The Nice Guys
8. Zootopia
9. The Big Short
10. Victoria
So huh, maybe 2016 hasn't been that bad of a year so far (still pales in comparison to 2015). Films that I thought would've made my Top 10 at the start of the year but either disappoint or don't quite break it are:
Spotlight (4 stars)
The Neon Demon (4 stars)
Hail, Caesar! (4 stars)
I, Daniel Blake (3 stars)
I've still got a ton of films on my watchlist and yes, vonFiedler , Sing Street is one of them :P
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
My favorite part about Doctor Strange was the entirely lazy 10 minutes where he proves he's the best doctor in the world and then we don't care anymore because no one cared to begin with.
It's a really great movie that genuinely I would have enjoyed another 30 minutes of where we did things that weren't just racing through plot as fast as possible. The formula of "talk to the villain 3-4 times tops" is really just not good. They need to treat the villains as main characters with equal screentime where they aren't just walking around doing bad things but need to like actually be fleshed out. (This is why I like Avengers 2 with Ultron and the Twins the most, since they all were allowed scenes to just be themselves).
Man I have a bunch of gripes for a movie that I really thought was fucking awesome.
It's a really great movie that genuinely I would have enjoyed another 30 minutes of where we did things that weren't just racing through plot as fast as possible. The formula of "talk to the villain 3-4 times tops" is really just not good. They need to treat the villains as main characters with equal screentime where they aren't just walking around doing bad things but need to like actually be fleshed out. (This is why I like Avengers 2 with Ultron and the Twins the most, since they all were allowed scenes to just be themselves).
Man I have a bunch of gripes for a movie that I really thought was fucking awesome.