-
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
As an accounting person I’ve found it super interesting to rewatch lately, and definitely agree with that statement.
2010: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
2011: 50/50
2012: Cabin in the Woods
2013: Pacific Rim
2014: Whiplash
2015: Inside Out
2016: Captain America: Civil War
2017: Get Out
2018: Avengers: Infinity War
2019: idk probably Joker, haven't seen Parasite yet though
2011: 50/50
2012: Cabin in the Woods
2013: Pacific Rim
2014: Whiplash
2015: Inside Out
2016: Captain America: Civil War
2017: Get Out
2018: Avengers: Infinity War
2019: idk probably Joker, haven't seen Parasite yet though
Nicolas Cage's next announced role will be in a movie where he plays two parts: current Nicolas Cage desperately trying to get a role in a Quentin Tarantino film while interacting with an imaginary 90s Nicolas Cage in his head.
I've never been more prepared for anything.
I've never been more prepared for anything.
Just saw Waking Life and Parasite, bot pretty great. Waking Life's first act is a total fucking chore but once it starts giving u breadcrumbs i was hooked.
Waking life is also extremely pretentious but given its nature its kind of hard for it not to he
Parasite is great all around, im glad i could take bong joon ho seriously this time.
Waking life is also extremely pretentious but given its nature its kind of hard for it not to he
Parasite is great all around, im glad i could take bong joon ho seriously this time.
Last edited:
So since the decades coming to a close, I set out a few days ago to rank every movie I've seen during it. Then I went on IMDb and found out that there are like 99k movies that came out in the last 10 years and I wasnt gonna flip through 50+ pages just to be sure I dont miss a significant amount, so I turned to animation instead. I made that one yesterday but wanted to expand it to 2000-2019 films bc I like a lot of those, and ended up changing my mind on a few prior placements. So here's that
Icons arent quality at all but I hope theyre enough to identify lmao. If it isnt here I either havent seen it or couldnt be fucked to scroll through another 20 pages on IMDb.
Icons arent quality at all but I hope theyre enough to identify lmao. If it isnt here I either havent seen it or couldnt be fucked to scroll through another 20 pages on IMDb.
The boss baby was nominated for an oscar and ponyo was not so there is something wrong with ur list
That’s because the Oscars are biased. They have a preference for American/British movies. Only two anime movies have ever been nominated for an Oscar, and that’s because some American filmmaker liked Ghibli.
Or it could be that the boss baby is truly the greatest animated feature of the 2010s. Possibly due to the excellent score by hans Zimmer
I wrote me a blog about American Psycho (2000), which is much easier to read than this wall of text
4.5/5
other movies that I've watched recently:
Joker (2019) dir. Todd Phillip (2/5)
Death Race 2000 (1975) dir. Paul Bartel (2/5)
The Fast & the Furious (2001) dir. Rob Cohen (can be found on my blog as well!) (3.5/5)
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) dir. John Singleton (4/5)
Temmink: The Ultimate Fight (1998) dir. Boris Paval Conen (Dutch underground cinema about a convicted man receiving capital punishment by fighting fellow prisoners to death) (3.5/5)
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) dir. Justin Lin (1.5/5)
4.5/5
“There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this, there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing.”
My grandfather once said that “everything that happens in America will some day come here”, and it stuck with me as I saw the modest Netherlands shift further into media glorification and endless consumerism. Black Friday is coming up and Singles Day just happened; for me, wholly new concepts designed to further enrich billionaire-led corporations and for many others another opportunity to seek escapism in materialism.
In American Psycho we observe Patrick Bateman, an American twenty-something 80s yuppie who is desperate to fit in with his narcissistic colleagues who are constantly busy with making reservations at fancy restaurants and getting luxurious name-brand suits and subtly off-white colored business cards to impress each other. Bateman is often misidentified by his peers and then insulted for being a spineless dork, contrary to how we see the stunning Christian Bale, a well-groomed and exceptionally fit man with heaps of natural charm.
One such colleague is Paul Allen, another sleek businessman who manages to impress by reserving at the exclusive Dorsia, on a Friday night, all the while showing off his new business card, infuriating Bateman to no end. From here on out we indulge in Bateman’s wild delusions as he imagines murdering Allen, as well as homeless people, prostitutes, and eventually everyone as he attempts fleeing from the cops.
In one key piece of monologue Bateman explains he feels only two emotions: greed and disgust. Allen is murdered because of sheer envy, because he achieved the successes that Bateman desperately tried to replicate to no avail, and those with a lower social standing get murdered because he feels no connection and is even disgusted. A particularly funny bit is after Allen’s death when Bateman breaks into his apartment and is deeply envious with the view, which is marginally better.
Bateman too, however, is a figment of his own fantasy. He self-aggrandizes himself to look like a smooth talking, fit Hollywood actor but when push comes to shove he breaks down and stumbles awkwardly into saying he has to return some tapes, further emphasized when his peers unknowingly call Bateman a coward. Its commentary about the image of oneself is especially apt in the social media era where we tie much of our worth to addicting yet fake internet points.
Our desperate desire to trump over other’s possessions makes us hollow and fuels us negatively. Patrick Bateman is wealthy and extremely well-off but struggles with existence as he fails to bond meaningfully, or even empathize, with anybody. His reality is vapid and so is anything that he, and by extent his colleagues, pursue.
American Psycho is a highly unique postmodern work analyzing absurdity in a society so desensitized to stimulation by virtue of our excess, and an overwhelming insatiable desire for more. But there’s inevitable pointlessness to all of this; there is no catharsis. As long as we remain gluttonous we will want to inflict pain upon others while not gaining a greater knowledge of ourselves. Patrick Bateman is the same character that he is from the very first scene. Him confessing his murderous imagination has meant nothing for the world remain a hollow shell seeking out a next physical thrill.
The films title is apt and doubly layered. Bateman undoubtedly is one but what could be said about the rest of this careless society moving at lightning speed. As Bateman carries Paul Allen’s corpse out his apartment all that his friend can remark is interest in the lavish Jean-Paul Gaultier duffel bag.
It might seems ridiculous but we all have a little bit of Patrick Bateman within ourselves. We, as a society at large, are the American Psycho. We too are hollow beings seeking out validation by meaningless possessions. We too gamified our self-confidence with Instagram and Twitter likes. We too dehumanize ourselves as we consciously discard our beings to let our accessories craft our identity, hoping to feel some importance in this utterly pointless life, where we suffer from a perpetual disconnect with our individual ‘reality’.
At some point we could all say that we are Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction who have a physical form and as we shake hands and feel our flesh gripping each others and maybe for a second we think our lives are probably comparable…
We are simply not there.
My grandfather once said that “everything that happens in America will some day come here”, and it stuck with me as I saw the modest Netherlands shift further into media glorification and endless consumerism. Black Friday is coming up and Singles Day just happened; for me, wholly new concepts designed to further enrich billionaire-led corporations and for many others another opportunity to seek escapism in materialism.
In American Psycho we observe Patrick Bateman, an American twenty-something 80s yuppie who is desperate to fit in with his narcissistic colleagues who are constantly busy with making reservations at fancy restaurants and getting luxurious name-brand suits and subtly off-white colored business cards to impress each other. Bateman is often misidentified by his peers and then insulted for being a spineless dork, contrary to how we see the stunning Christian Bale, a well-groomed and exceptionally fit man with heaps of natural charm.
One such colleague is Paul Allen, another sleek businessman who manages to impress by reserving at the exclusive Dorsia, on a Friday night, all the while showing off his new business card, infuriating Bateman to no end. From here on out we indulge in Bateman’s wild delusions as he imagines murdering Allen, as well as homeless people, prostitutes, and eventually everyone as he attempts fleeing from the cops.
In one key piece of monologue Bateman explains he feels only two emotions: greed and disgust. Allen is murdered because of sheer envy, because he achieved the successes that Bateman desperately tried to replicate to no avail, and those with a lower social standing get murdered because he feels no connection and is even disgusted. A particularly funny bit is after Allen’s death when Bateman breaks into his apartment and is deeply envious with the view, which is marginally better.
Bateman too, however, is a figment of his own fantasy. He self-aggrandizes himself to look like a smooth talking, fit Hollywood actor but when push comes to shove he breaks down and stumbles awkwardly into saying he has to return some tapes, further emphasized when his peers unknowingly call Bateman a coward. Its commentary about the image of oneself is especially apt in the social media era where we tie much of our worth to addicting yet fake internet points.
Our desperate desire to trump over other’s possessions makes us hollow and fuels us negatively. Patrick Bateman is wealthy and extremely well-off but struggles with existence as he fails to bond meaningfully, or even empathize, with anybody. His reality is vapid and so is anything that he, and by extent his colleagues, pursue.
American Psycho is a highly unique postmodern work analyzing absurdity in a society so desensitized to stimulation by virtue of our excess, and an overwhelming insatiable desire for more. But there’s inevitable pointlessness to all of this; there is no catharsis. As long as we remain gluttonous we will want to inflict pain upon others while not gaining a greater knowledge of ourselves. Patrick Bateman is the same character that he is from the very first scene. Him confessing his murderous imagination has meant nothing for the world remain a hollow shell seeking out a next physical thrill.
The films title is apt and doubly layered. Bateman undoubtedly is one but what could be said about the rest of this careless society moving at lightning speed. As Bateman carries Paul Allen’s corpse out his apartment all that his friend can remark is interest in the lavish Jean-Paul Gaultier duffel bag.
It might seems ridiculous but we all have a little bit of Patrick Bateman within ourselves. We, as a society at large, are the American Psycho. We too are hollow beings seeking out validation by meaningless possessions. We too gamified our self-confidence with Instagram and Twitter likes. We too dehumanize ourselves as we consciously discard our beings to let our accessories craft our identity, hoping to feel some importance in this utterly pointless life, where we suffer from a perpetual disconnect with our individual ‘reality’.
At some point we could all say that we are Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction who have a physical form and as we shake hands and feel our flesh gripping each others and maybe for a second we think our lives are probably comparable…
We are simply not there.
other movies that I've watched recently:
Joker (2019) dir. Todd Phillip (2/5)
Joker (2019)'s morals lack tenacity: Joaquin Phoenix' character accidentally incites an entire anarchic revolution in a disheveled Gotham, but as Joker says towards the end; he's entirely apolitical. There's no grande artistic statement made about the political right-wing turmoil that often incites insular white men to become mass shooters, but accidentally stumbles onto a different conclusion, taking away much of the punch of Phoenix' transformation.
I find the whole uprising to be shoddy. Although Todd Philipp seems to not be as queasy as Dark Knight Rises Nolan, with his actual criticism on cutting funding for mental health institutes and establishing Thomas Wayne as disinterested piece of shit with a savior complex, he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the modern "Ok boomer"-generation stands for. It's not rioting and endless violence; it's equality.
It feels as if Phillip does have some understanding but no connection at all and it shines particularly in Arthur Fleck's development. One egregious moment is when the camera lingers for 5 seconds on an edgy, angsty teenage notebook with a quote that looks like it came from when I was 12 and had no understand of my mental illnesses either.
The relentless misery porn of the first act is too over-the-top to be able to sympathize with Arthur, despite Phoenix' strong acting. When the transformation into Joker is complete and he appears on Robert DeNiro's TV show, right when it looks like a poignant point might actually be made, it devolves yet again into a Linkin Park-listening teenage rant. All subtlety and nuance is thrown out of the window for its final act.
Not all is bad with the film; aforementioned Joaquin Phoenix is practically the sole focus of the film and tries his best to elevate the script with awkward tics and an incredibly well-acted case of tormenting Tourettes. The early stifled dialogue and awkward situations are acted with pinpoint accuracy, leading to all-around uncomfortable scenarios.
The stylistic direction leans heavily into early 80s New York infused with modern neon lights. It can paint pretty pictures like Arthur stumbling into a neon-lit pharmacy littered with trash. However, particularly fitting cuts can be found in its first act when Arthur has to combat tortuously high, concrete steps or when he beats up bags of trash to cope with his shitty life.
I believe Joker could have been a significant film indicative of its time; where young generations struggle to find a hold as the high-class beats down on them by cutting resources. Where youngsters now plunge into loneliness and might veer towards violence as the world endlessly pounds on them. Todd Phillip recognized all of this was happening in the world right now, but was incapable of stringing together the meaningful script that it deserved.
I find the whole uprising to be shoddy. Although Todd Philipp seems to not be as queasy as Dark Knight Rises Nolan, with his actual criticism on cutting funding for mental health institutes and establishing Thomas Wayne as disinterested piece of shit with a savior complex, he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the modern "Ok boomer"-generation stands for. It's not rioting and endless violence; it's equality.
It feels as if Phillip does have some understanding but no connection at all and it shines particularly in Arthur Fleck's development. One egregious moment is when the camera lingers for 5 seconds on an edgy, angsty teenage notebook with a quote that looks like it came from when I was 12 and had no understand of my mental illnesses either.
The relentless misery porn of the first act is too over-the-top to be able to sympathize with Arthur, despite Phoenix' strong acting. When the transformation into Joker is complete and he appears on Robert DeNiro's TV show, right when it looks like a poignant point might actually be made, it devolves yet again into a Linkin Park-listening teenage rant. All subtlety and nuance is thrown out of the window for its final act.
Not all is bad with the film; aforementioned Joaquin Phoenix is practically the sole focus of the film and tries his best to elevate the script with awkward tics and an incredibly well-acted case of tormenting Tourettes. The early stifled dialogue and awkward situations are acted with pinpoint accuracy, leading to all-around uncomfortable scenarios.
The stylistic direction leans heavily into early 80s New York infused with modern neon lights. It can paint pretty pictures like Arthur stumbling into a neon-lit pharmacy littered with trash. However, particularly fitting cuts can be found in its first act when Arthur has to combat tortuously high, concrete steps or when he beats up bags of trash to cope with his shitty life.
I believe Joker could have been a significant film indicative of its time; where young generations struggle to find a hold as the high-class beats down on them by cutting resources. Where youngsters now plunge into loneliness and might veer towards violence as the world endlessly pounds on them. Todd Phillip recognized all of this was happening in the world right now, but was incapable of stringing together the meaningful script that it deserved.
Death Race 2000 (1975) dir. Paul Bartel (2/5)
this was close to being good; there's much opportunity to make social commentary about totalitarian governments appeasing its people with gratuitous violence. there's something to be said about the incompetency of the rebellion translating to a lack of organization in reality. there's probably some wealth of depth that could be tapped into regarding the Nazi car.
but all of it is done so crudely. Carradine's Frankenstein is exceptionally stiff and awkward whereas Stallone's Viterbo is overly buffoonish. much of the dialogue and confusingly storyboarded scenes suck meaning away or even spark unintended humor. the shitty choreography in Carradine and Stallone's fight is downright hilarious if only for its incompetency.
but it's kinda fun!
but all of it is done so crudely. Carradine's Frankenstein is exceptionally stiff and awkward whereas Stallone's Viterbo is overly buffoonish. much of the dialogue and confusingly storyboarded scenes suck meaning away or even spark unintended humor. the shitty choreography in Carradine and Stallone's fight is downright hilarious if only for its incompetency.
but it's kinda fun!
The Fast & the Furious (2001) dir. Rob Cohen (can be found on my blog as well!) (3.5/5)
Tacky early 00’s nu metal, scantily-clad women, an abundance of car-related lingo, and hyper masculine wish-fulfillment with a surprisingly strong emotional core in its final act make up the likable The Fast & the Furious. It doesn’t all make sense, but in the end it’s a worthwhile story about camaraderie in a high-risk environment, accomplished by its final scene.
The plot is rather simple: undercover agent Brian has to infiltrate a popular street racing crew led by Vin Diesel, playing the daring role of Vin Diesel, to uncover who is behind armed truck robberies that have struck somewhere, Arizona. Its first parts establishes the friendship between these two leads, filled with cheesy, meat-headed dialogue that seems to consist entirely out of one-liners (elevated by the background crowd’s ‘ooh’s and ‘aah’s).
It eventually segues into the strong part of the movie: Vin’s team hits up another robbery but the truck driver, aware of the heists, armed himself. One of Vin’s team members gets critically injured and Brian saves the day, whilst uncovering he’s a cop. There’s an tension acted out by Paul Walker here, which is a sincere betrayal. Here it becomes apparent how much Brian has become a native of street-racing life and how his allegiances switch. This is capped off by another surge of adrenaline, a final race between Vin and Brian at a railroad section, where predictably a train crosses. The scene is real good with well-done editing to give a little more edge to it.
One could call it unsubstantial, or critically unrewarding. One might consider it predictable suburbanite teenage wish-fulfillment. But I can’t look past its charms: the campy Vin Diesel character that thinks with his biceps, the unintentional bits of humor like Limp Bizkit’s Rollin’ unexpectedly blaring through the speakers, or flashy cars with customization looking straight out of Need for Speed Underground zooming over the screen.
Undeniably its heart is in the right place, so I can’t help but like it. It’s fun, man.
The plot is rather simple: undercover agent Brian has to infiltrate a popular street racing crew led by Vin Diesel, playing the daring role of Vin Diesel, to uncover who is behind armed truck robberies that have struck somewhere, Arizona. Its first parts establishes the friendship between these two leads, filled with cheesy, meat-headed dialogue that seems to consist entirely out of one-liners (elevated by the background crowd’s ‘ooh’s and ‘aah’s).
It eventually segues into the strong part of the movie: Vin’s team hits up another robbery but the truck driver, aware of the heists, armed himself. One of Vin’s team members gets critically injured and Brian saves the day, whilst uncovering he’s a cop. There’s an tension acted out by Paul Walker here, which is a sincere betrayal. Here it becomes apparent how much Brian has become a native of street-racing life and how his allegiances switch. This is capped off by another surge of adrenaline, a final race between Vin and Brian at a railroad section, where predictably a train crosses. The scene is real good with well-done editing to give a little more edge to it.
One could call it unsubstantial, or critically unrewarding. One might consider it predictable suburbanite teenage wish-fulfillment. But I can’t look past its charms: the campy Vin Diesel character that thinks with his biceps, the unintentional bits of humor like Limp Bizkit’s Rollin’ unexpectedly blaring through the speakers, or flashy cars with customization looking straight out of Need for Speed Underground zooming over the screen.
Undeniably its heart is in the right place, so I can’t help but like it. It’s fun, man.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) dir. John Singleton (4/5)
man, this film is still real good. it's less heartfelt, more comedic than part one. and i think it's fine; tyrese offers quite a bit of charisma and has incompetency that bounces well off brian o'conner's own.
it's hyper masculine, it's nonsensical, it's outrageous. it's fast & the furious.
those stunts are incredible. the film introduces our side characters with a fantastic set-piece including a classic bridge jump. there's the great challenge of getting the cigar out of the 'impounded' Ferrari which includes some poor dude getting crushed by a truck. there's the damn rat scene.
i think the police chase scene single-handedly got me to be a bit of a car fanatic for a couple of years. the choreography is so smooth and the constant cop evasion and pile-ups were strongly reminiscent of Need for Speed brought to cinema. the coolest is when they eventually speed into the garage and you get that *massive* scramble. the highly impressionable 7 year old bunny was amazed by that scenes grandiosity and to this day i consider it real exciting. when Tej and Suki step out of those Mitsubishis and you get that cut to those muscle cars that were won earlier in the film
goddamn
AND the film ends with a car laying on top of a yacht??
love this shit
it's hyper masculine, it's nonsensical, it's outrageous. it's fast & the furious.
those stunts are incredible. the film introduces our side characters with a fantastic set-piece including a classic bridge jump. there's the great challenge of getting the cigar out of the 'impounded' Ferrari which includes some poor dude getting crushed by a truck. there's the damn rat scene.
i think the police chase scene single-handedly got me to be a bit of a car fanatic for a couple of years. the choreography is so smooth and the constant cop evasion and pile-ups were strongly reminiscent of Need for Speed brought to cinema. the coolest is when they eventually speed into the garage and you get that *massive* scramble. the highly impressionable 7 year old bunny was amazed by that scenes grandiosity and to this day i consider it real exciting. when Tej and Suki step out of those Mitsubishis and you get that cut to those muscle cars that were won earlier in the film
goddamn
AND the film ends with a car laying on top of a yacht??
love this shit
Temmink: The Ultimate Fight (1998) dir. Boris Paval Conen (Dutch underground cinema about a convicted man receiving capital punishment by fighting fellow prisoners to death) (3.5/5)
I was confused with my first view of Temmink. Its plot beats, pacing, and entire concept kind of confused me but upon re-watching it dawned on me that this film is actually really good.
Jack Wouterse performs such an awkward, ill-at-ease role with incredible precision. It starts in the courtroom, where Temmink seems to be entirely confused and stumbles into incoherent answers to crucial questions. The first time he walks down that cramped hallway where has to stoop a little bit, sweat dripping from his forehead, with a completely alien look in his eyes. Incredible.
The scenes with the prostitutes, Ellen in particular, contain incredibly stilted dialogue but propel Temmink further to become the force that eventually breaks the ring.
There's zero scenes, aside from the first five minutes and one short, vague dream sequence, that have an outside setting. A grayish palette colors the raw prison. Backdrops are frequently re-used, inducing an ill, claustrophobic sense of atmosphere. No outside forces can interfere aside from voting on a 'gladiators' fate with their TV remotes. The greatest bit of interaction are the muffled sounds of an overly excited crowd cheering on the gratuitous violence they are so far removed from. It's deranged.
It's not just Wouterse and the setting deserving all of the praise: David plays a good role as comedic relief in what would otherwise be a crushingly depressing atmosphere, and whose sacrifice plays a massive role in the story. Goliath stays expressionless even through all the provocation, but breaks entirely when Temmink throws the fight. Immortality in an endless abyss must be excruciatingly painful. It's an immense scene.
There's plenty of other great details that make Temmink so impressive: the cast eventually erodes and in the final act all the fighters we got to know were replaced. Rex' facial expressions at his Goliath draw and his subsequent, mysterious passing into the 'Red Door'. Toine van Peperstraten presenting the sports channel and interviewing Dutch folk whether biting your opponent should be legal in a no-holds-barred fight-to-the-death contest. And that cathartic open ending with Temmink's middle fingers held up high as the crowd that jeered him now stood face to face with this exceptionally strange monster.
Jack Wouterse performs such an awkward, ill-at-ease role with incredible precision. It starts in the courtroom, where Temmink seems to be entirely confused and stumbles into incoherent answers to crucial questions. The first time he walks down that cramped hallway where has to stoop a little bit, sweat dripping from his forehead, with a completely alien look in his eyes. Incredible.
The scenes with the prostitutes, Ellen in particular, contain incredibly stilted dialogue but propel Temmink further to become the force that eventually breaks the ring.
There's zero scenes, aside from the first five minutes and one short, vague dream sequence, that have an outside setting. A grayish palette colors the raw prison. Backdrops are frequently re-used, inducing an ill, claustrophobic sense of atmosphere. No outside forces can interfere aside from voting on a 'gladiators' fate with their TV remotes. The greatest bit of interaction are the muffled sounds of an overly excited crowd cheering on the gratuitous violence they are so far removed from. It's deranged.
It's not just Wouterse and the setting deserving all of the praise: David plays a good role as comedic relief in what would otherwise be a crushingly depressing atmosphere, and whose sacrifice plays a massive role in the story. Goliath stays expressionless even through all the provocation, but breaks entirely when Temmink throws the fight. Immortality in an endless abyss must be excruciatingly painful. It's an immense scene.
There's plenty of other great details that make Temmink so impressive: the cast eventually erodes and in the final act all the fighters we got to know were replaced. Rex' facial expressions at his Goliath draw and his subsequent, mysterious passing into the 'Red Door'. Toine van Peperstraten presenting the sports channel and interviewing Dutch folk whether biting your opponent should be legal in a no-holds-barred fight-to-the-death contest. And that cathartic open ending with Temmink's middle fingers held up high as the crowd that jeered him now stood face to face with this exceptionally strange monster.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) dir. Justin Lin (1.5/5)
weirdly patriotic, or at least distinctly non-Japanese, for the gaijin with his American muscle car to beat the big Japanese bad to end up with the Australian girl in the end. there's only one notable Japanese character, really, which is Han who plays quite well as he oozes 'cool' the scenes he gets to. for how much potential it thematically and aesthetically had, none of it really comes together as sequences just flutter until it concludes, although quite grandiosely with a surprise Vin Diesel feature.
man, I used to love this film as a kid. I think drifting just really grabbed me, but none of it really comes to fruition here much like the film itself. action sequences are cut so haphazardly and often in such darkness that it's difficult to grasp what exactly is happening. in the final sequence, much of it is two headlights ramming into each other. it's rather disappointing.
Tokyo Drift seems to take a more grounded approach than its predecessors. unfortunately the focus lays more on the characters; primarily Lucas Black playing the immersion breaking role of 17-year-old high-school student, despite looking like a 30-year-old with a receding hairline. it's the antithesis to Paul Walker's pretty-boy character who had tons of charm to his not-so-good one-liners, as Sean Boswell here ruins nearly every scene with his Alabama drawl.
the only part where all of the elements come together and click for a spectacular cohesive is when Neela takes Sean out for a drive, where the lighting casts an ethereal glow over the mountain that acts as an escape from reality. whether the symmetrically drifting cars in the background are real or not matters not, nor do any of the antagonists or worries. the sensual shot eventually pans upwards to reveal the shaky moon that looks much like a water reflection. this scene simply is otherworldly.
as for the rest of the movie? man it kinda sucks
man, I used to love this film as a kid. I think drifting just really grabbed me, but none of it really comes to fruition here much like the film itself. action sequences are cut so haphazardly and often in such darkness that it's difficult to grasp what exactly is happening. in the final sequence, much of it is two headlights ramming into each other. it's rather disappointing.
Tokyo Drift seems to take a more grounded approach than its predecessors. unfortunately the focus lays more on the characters; primarily Lucas Black playing the immersion breaking role of 17-year-old high-school student, despite looking like a 30-year-old with a receding hairline. it's the antithesis to Paul Walker's pretty-boy character who had tons of charm to his not-so-good one-liners, as Sean Boswell here ruins nearly every scene with his Alabama drawl.
the only part where all of the elements come together and click for a spectacular cohesive is when Neela takes Sean out for a drive, where the lighting casts an ethereal glow over the mountain that acts as an escape from reality. whether the symmetrically drifting cars in the background are real or not matters not, nor do any of the antagonists or worries. the sensual shot eventually pans upwards to reveal the shaky moon that looks much like a water reflection. this scene simply is otherworldly.
as for the rest of the movie? man it kinda sucks
Last edited:
The only reason why the movie 9 is decent is because Coheed and Cambria is on featured in the soundtrack.So since the decades coming to a close, I set out a few days ago to rank every movie I've seen during it. Then I went on IMDb and found out that there are like 99k movies that came out in the last 10 years and I wasnt gonna flip through 50+ pages just to be sure I dont miss a significant amount, so I turned to animation instead. I made that one yesterday but wanted to expand it to 2000-2019 films bc I like a lot of those, and ended up changing my mind on a few prior placements. So here's that
Icons arent quality at all but I hope theyre enough to identify lmao. If it isnt here I either havent seen it or couldnt be fucked to scroll through another 20 pages on IMDb.
Has anyone seen knives out? Doesnt really seem all that cool from the trailer but i get the vibe its kind of gathering hype
It's got craig so that's an autowatch
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is MOTY and nobody can tell me otherwise. This is a movie for people who grew up watching Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. This is a movie for people who read the article this film is based on. This is a movie for people who need to be convinced that they don't actually hate feelings. This is a movie for anyone who has wondered if there was ever someone in this world who perfectly understood the human condition.
And it deserves so many Oscars. Best actor, best supporting actor, best supporting actress, best director, best screenplay, best cinematography, best set design, best sound editing, best... is there an award just for building models? It wins that one, too.
Sorry, Raising Arizona, you just got bumped off my top 25 list.
And it deserves so many Oscars. Best actor, best supporting actor, best supporting actress, best director, best screenplay, best cinematography, best set design, best sound editing, best... is there an award just for building models? It wins that one, too.
Sorry, Raising Arizona, you just got bumped off my top 25 list.
Knives out was PHENOMENAL! I will say that it was just the tiniest bit too heavy w setting up its big twist so I was onto its game too early...but this is still a slapper of a story and the cinematographer scriptwriter and actors all did a great job. Props rian johnson!!
Panic Station
Primal
The most anticipated Cage movie of this year, it looks like Primal disappointed many but I certainly don’t think it deserved that. A film about trying to survive on a boat filled with an assassin and many deadly animals, Primal’s main issues are those of budget and directorial experience: bad CGI, regrettable lighting choices, and a third act that slows down just a bit too much. But at least for those first two acts I was getting real Alien vibes, or at least something on par with Cage classics like Con Air or The Rock. And while it ultimately doesn’t feel like a movie I’ll keep going back to, it was a B movie that I had fun with, and clearly one that Cage had fun with too. His semi-romantic interest, a great performance from Famke Janssen, is even his own age for once (although she sure doesn’t look it). And while many of the cast are nobodies, whoever Kevin Durand is plays such creepy villain that I hope he becomes somebody someday.
I give it a 5/10.
Primal
The most anticipated Cage movie of this year, it looks like Primal disappointed many but I certainly don’t think it deserved that. A film about trying to survive on a boat filled with an assassin and many deadly animals, Primal’s main issues are those of budget and directorial experience: bad CGI, regrettable lighting choices, and a third act that slows down just a bit too much. But at least for those first two acts I was getting real Alien vibes, or at least something on par with Cage classics like Con Air or The Rock. And while it ultimately doesn’t feel like a movie I’ll keep going back to, it was a B movie that I had fun with, and clearly one that Cage had fun with too. His semi-romantic interest, a great performance from Famke Janssen, is even his own age for once (although she sure doesn’t look it). And while many of the cast are nobodies, whoever Kevin Durand is plays such creepy villain that I hope he becomes somebody someday.
I give it a 5/10.
it's really excellent, and probably my third favourite scorsese film after age of innocence and taxi driver. gonna recommend that you see it in a theatre if one shows it near you (it's not essential, especially when barely any cinemas show netflix movies, but it definitely benefits from the big screen).
Fight Club (short and bad post)
No Country for Old Men (long and good post)
I like interpreting Fight Club more as an adolescent coming-of-age about how aspiring to be the perfect dude-bro in Tyler Durden is unhealthy, and how desiring validation from your masculinity, feeling misplaced in a late-stage capitalist society, and believing vulnerability is weakness.
Unfortunately it doesn't make as much sense in the context of the film, which is supposed to be taken more literal, but I think by twisting the end sequence into the narrator metaphorically killing his persona he became disillusioned with, finally opening up to his crush, and watching the landscape flatten so the narrator gets a refreshed outlook on the world, you end up with a more valuable film and conclusion.
This could be a detriment of the film; that its philosophy and events are so juvenile that they make more sense as a cautionary teen movie. Alas.
Unfortunately it doesn't make as much sense in the context of the film, which is supposed to be taken more literal, but I think by twisting the end sequence into the narrator metaphorically killing his persona he became disillusioned with, finally opening up to his crush, and watching the landscape flatten so the narrator gets a refreshed outlook on the world, you end up with a more valuable film and conclusion.
This could be a detriment of the film; that its philosophy and events are so juvenile that they make more sense as a cautionary teen movie. Alas.
No Country for Old Men (long and good post)
No Country for Old Men is a fantastic film narrative-wise and its anti-climactic ending ranks among my favorites in cinema for how brilliantly well it fits the story. The film is meticulous in every one of its plot beats, but No Country for Old Men is one of those films where the expertise and craftsmanship is palpable. I had a similar epiphany during Neon Genesis Evangelion, where I wanted to understand cinematography because of its beauty, and the Coen brothers display their understanding masterfully here.
The framing of their shots and their subsequent editing are rich and expressive, which allows greatly for visual storytelling. Scenes such as Ed Tom checking the little house Llewelyn got murdered in are tense, but also because the Coen brothers frame characters so we get to see the full range of emotions. It's a difficult scene where zero words are spoken, and although its purpose might be a bit ambiguous, it serves as a fantastic metaphor that Ed Tom feels overwhelmed by evil.
The framing and smooth editing of the dialogue means that No Country for Old Men is always conveying critical information, whether it be with visual cues or by character acting. This particular scene with Ed Tom talking with Carla Jean allow the actors to breathe and ACT, and they do a fantastic job.
Look at the framing of this shot! It feels so wide and extensive. The canvas conveys a sense of liveliness with its background characters and parking lot. Most noticeable is the daylight and the mountains in the background that give such a sense of space and freedom. It's a massively different tone from Llewelyn's earlier altercation with Chigurh, which is claustrophobic and gripping in its darkness. That parallels the different predicaments Llewelyn was in: here the scene was introduced with Llewelyn telling Chigurh he's going to kill him, and with its visual aesthetic we get the feeling that, hey, he actually might triumph over Chigurh!
Which he doesn't, of course, because it's No Country for Old Men.
I don't want to regurgitate Every Frame a Painting's great video about the Shot-Reverse-Shot technique the Coen brothers have mastered but look how rich and expressive frames like these are.
They establish a strong sense of character without feeling cluttered. Ed Tom is very much the centerpiece of this scene, but how much of a read can you get on this guy based on his living space alone?
This entire scene speaks for itself, but it goes to show how far the Coen brothers go to make these characters feel alive. Even the background characters are fleshed out so we can get a better understanding of who and what they are. By setting these characters centerpiece and surrounding them with trinkets and such, we feel like stakes are raised as it adds a layer of personal edge.
Want more examples? How about the lady that tells Chigurh she can't tell where Llewelyn works. The business man hiring Carson Wells. Carla Jean's mom. Ed Tom's uncle with the cats. Interesting side-note: they go their length to personalize practically everyone in this film except for Chigurh, because he's a sociopath.
One of No Country for Old Men's strongest visual storytelling moments comes from this particular scene towards the very end of the film, where Chigurh kills Carla Jean.
The scene gets introduced with Carla Jean going to her mothers funeral and the next shot is of a car entering a driveway. We see Carla Jean step out, and with our preconceived knowledge we can gather that this is her mom's house and Carla Jean is the actor of the scene. The house is a majority of the frame, giving us a great sense of position and spatial awareness. The camera cuts into another establishing position: the living room of the house, giving us a greater understanding of what kind of character Carla Jean's mom was, while Carla Jean herself enters the frame and sits on a chair opposite the window. The next cut of is of an uneasy Carla Jean slowly looking up and noticing the window is opened. The implication here being that Chigurh has entered the house via the window. This is confirmed by the next cut where Carla Jean opens the door and sees Chigurh sitting menacingly.
The brilliance of this zero dialogue scene is in allowing the actors to ACT. Conveying critical information with visual cues is respectful of the intelligence of your audience and makes for an endlessly smoother viewing experience.
The framing of their shots and their subsequent editing are rich and expressive, which allows greatly for visual storytelling. Scenes such as Ed Tom checking the little house Llewelyn got murdered in are tense, but also because the Coen brothers frame characters so we get to see the full range of emotions. It's a difficult scene where zero words are spoken, and although its purpose might be a bit ambiguous, it serves as a fantastic metaphor that Ed Tom feels overwhelmed by evil.
The framing and smooth editing of the dialogue means that No Country for Old Men is always conveying critical information, whether it be with visual cues or by character acting. This particular scene with Ed Tom talking with Carla Jean allow the actors to breathe and ACT, and they do a fantastic job.
Look at the framing of this shot! It feels so wide and extensive. The canvas conveys a sense of liveliness with its background characters and parking lot. Most noticeable is the daylight and the mountains in the background that give such a sense of space and freedom. It's a massively different tone from Llewelyn's earlier altercation with Chigurh, which is claustrophobic and gripping in its darkness. That parallels the different predicaments Llewelyn was in: here the scene was introduced with Llewelyn telling Chigurh he's going to kill him, and with its visual aesthetic we get the feeling that, hey, he actually might triumph over Chigurh!
Which he doesn't, of course, because it's No Country for Old Men.
I don't want to regurgitate Every Frame a Painting's great video about the Shot-Reverse-Shot technique the Coen brothers have mastered but look how rich and expressive frames like these are.
They establish a strong sense of character without feeling cluttered. Ed Tom is very much the centerpiece of this scene, but how much of a read can you get on this guy based on his living space alone?
This entire scene speaks for itself, but it goes to show how far the Coen brothers go to make these characters feel alive. Even the background characters are fleshed out so we can get a better understanding of who and what they are. By setting these characters centerpiece and surrounding them with trinkets and such, we feel like stakes are raised as it adds a layer of personal edge.
Want more examples? How about the lady that tells Chigurh she can't tell where Llewelyn works. The business man hiring Carson Wells. Carla Jean's mom. Ed Tom's uncle with the cats. Interesting side-note: they go their length to personalize practically everyone in this film except for Chigurh, because he's a sociopath.
One of No Country for Old Men's strongest visual storytelling moments comes from this particular scene towards the very end of the film, where Chigurh kills Carla Jean.
The scene gets introduced with Carla Jean going to her mothers funeral and the next shot is of a car entering a driveway. We see Carla Jean step out, and with our preconceived knowledge we can gather that this is her mom's house and Carla Jean is the actor of the scene. The house is a majority of the frame, giving us a great sense of position and spatial awareness. The camera cuts into another establishing position: the living room of the house, giving us a greater understanding of what kind of character Carla Jean's mom was, while Carla Jean herself enters the frame and sits on a chair opposite the window. The next cut of is of an uneasy Carla Jean slowly looking up and noticing the window is opened. The implication here being that Chigurh has entered the house via the window. This is confirmed by the next cut where Carla Jean opens the door and sees Chigurh sitting menacingly.
The brilliance of this zero dialogue scene is in allowing the actors to ACT. Conveying critical information with visual cues is respectful of the intelligence of your audience and makes for an endlessly smoother viewing experience.
RODAN
Banned deucer.
anyone interested in a movie discord where we can chat films we watched and shit.
edit: https://discord.gg/ExTtAPU
edit: https://discord.gg/ExTtAPU
Last edited:
irishman was amazing and well worth the runtime. I was afraid it'd be marty doing goodfellas (a film I love ftr) again, just in a new setting, but that couldn't have been further from what I got, which was beautifully morose and heartfelt. I also liked some of the playful jabs at his own stereotypes
I completely forgot about the release date of this movie. I was looking forward to watching this because of Chris Evans and Jamie Lee Curtis. It's one of the movies along with Ready Or Not that I was anticipating this year. Good thing I was able to watch the latter though.
The Amazonian Rainforest
Banned deucer.
Ford v. Ferrari was good but quite overlong.
Having gotten caught up again on Nicolas Cage films with Grand Isle, I have finally completed my review and ranking of every Cage film. Films are ranked with equal value given to objective quality and the Cage Gauge, which is a measurement of how much Cage is in the movie, how well he acts, how crazy he acts, and how weird things are in general. Each film is accompanied by its year of release and rotten tomatoes score. This is a LONG article, so I’ll be posting about 10 a day.
Not featured are Best of Times (TV movie that was really just a failed pilot for a variety show, but you can youtube a pretty good monologue Cage has), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (decent movie but his very minor character doesn't even get a name), Industrial Symphony No. 1 (David Lynch roped Cage and Laura Dern into filming an introduction for this concert during the production of Wild at Heart), Grindhouse (Fake trailer between two movies, but well worth checking out), Dark (Just a director's cut of Dying of the Light, which is not a movie I care to watch again), or Love, Antosha (documentary Cage narrates).
91. Left Behind (2014) 1%
Nicolas Cage has two films on the IMDb’s bottom 100 list, so it makes sense that one of the two would be here at the bottom. Left Behind’s second take on an adaptation of the book series about the rapture was so dull that even critics tied to Christian publications slammed it, with Christianity Today saying they “tried to give the film zero stars, but our tech system won't allow it.”
No one was hopeful that this film would be good, but Cage fans actually kept an eye on this one as the story of a plane that loses half its passengers mid-flight could make for some campy fun. However, Cage isn’t even in this movie much as it bounces around between plots that are never very fleshed out.
90. Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001) 17%
At the height of his career Nicolas Cage actually managed to star in one of his absolute worst films, and it’s a real feat on director Jimmy T. Murakami’s part that he could adapt A Christmas Carol so poorly that it’s the second worst Cage film. Allegedly a good animator (having previously made When the Wind Blows), something must have really went wrong here. This version is heavily embellished, fleshing out a variety of characters and adding unnecessary characters, like not one, but two cartoon mice, and villains that aren’t offered the same chance at redemption that Scrooge gets, undercutting the story. Scrooge is also much younger so that he can be reunited with Belle at the end. The film may have gotten away with these things if it didn’t look absolutely atrocious and have zero energy, but you’d be forgiven for thinking that this was a college project. None of this is Cage’s fault obviously. A casual viewer probably wouldn’t even identify him in his small role as Jacob Marley.
89. USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage (2016) 17%
You would be forgiven for thinking that USS Indianapolis was a completely foreign made film. Or maybe I just want to excuse the fact that I did for the longest time. Anyway, this is not a good film. The staggeringly high 17% of critics who gave this film a fresh score can basically be summarized as saying “it’s a true World War II story and no one else was telling it.” I think we could have waited another 71 years and spared ourselves such a poorly made ripoff of Jaws.
The film does have some great campy moments, like when the Japanese submarine captain’s ghost father tells him that he brings dishonor upon his family for not killing more people. But none of these fun scenes involve Cage himself, as his acting what was at the height of what we call the “Xanax era”.
88. The Humanity Bureau (2017) 25%
A “science-fiction” film wherein Cage plays a government agent totally not in charge of turning poor people into soylent green (spoilers!). This time we’re ripping off Logan, so due to a minor bureaucratic red flag, Cage has to take his secret son to Canada while being chased by Nick from Left 4 Dead 2. I put science-fiction in quotes before because the only thing you need to portray a dystopian future is shots of low-income housing in desert climates. LARPing in abandoned warehouses might have worked for Stalker, but surprisingly we don’t end up with the same level of artistic expression here.
87. The Boy in Blue (1986) 44%
Cage’s career wouldn’t be a perfect curve if he wasn’t in some really bad movies before he became famous, but don’t worry, he has us covered. By the way, this was the hardest movie for me to obtain by some margin. I paid quite a bit for a DVD after failing to get top bid on eBay twice and plenty of waiting in between. When I watched what felt like a small Canadian made-for-TV movie, I understood why. The Boy in Blue is the real life story of Canadian sculler Ned Hanlan. You probably don’t know about Ned Hanlan because you probably don’t know what a sculler is unless you watched The Social Network. That obscurity would be okay if this was remotely a good sports movie, but it’s not. There’s no tension in any sport scenes as we see shots of Ned rowing, his opponents rowing, and then we’re told that Ned is rowing faster. The film largely takes place before Hanlan’s career, so instead of seeing him compete at the world stage, we’re seeing petty dramas that were invented for the film.
Cage does a lot of heavy lifting in his films, but this time he does it literally. It’s obvious that he was only selected for this movie because at the time he was quite muscular and handsome. He brings nothing else to the role and it really stands out as one of his worst performances ever. Word is he got an obscene tattoo put on his back to prevent this kind of casting in the future.
86. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (2001) 28%
The most infamous film from the height of Cage’s career, where he plays a fascist army captain. But he’s not one of those bad German fascists, he’s a good Italian fascist. And instead of oppressing the Greek island he’s taken control of with violence, he oppresses them with really awful singing.
Perhaps you’ve already spotted the problem with this film. Nicolas Cage is woefully cast as an Italian man and Penélope Cruz isn’t a much better Greek. Cage’s greatest strength as an actor is that he has more conviction than any other, more than any sane actor who would care about their image and their career. His greatest weakness however is with accents. But perhaps he disagrees, after all, he just keeps doing them, and this was one of his worst.
85. Bangkok Dangerous (2008) 8%
2008 was the height of Cage’s infamy. A friend and I would joke about seeing this movie, but we wouldn’t have gotten much out of it. A remake of 1999’s Bangkok Dangerous and directed by the same pair of twins, Bangkok Dangerous wasn’t a cynical remake, just a really bad one nonetheless. Cage plays a hitman in Bangkok who shouldn’t start personal relationships because it’s bad for a hitman to do, he does so anyway, and the results are predictable and tedious.
The gimmick of the original film was that the hitman was deaf, which made him fearless. The Pang brothers abandoned this gimmick because they would need to give an actor like Nicolas Cage some good lines. They didn’t.
84. Running with the Devil (2019) 22%
2019, if not overwhelming, had been so very consistent for Cage until I saw this movie. I suppose it’s ambitious in its attempt to create a Martin McDonagh style tableau of characters, the writer/director just forget to put any actual characters in it. This makes following the plot (something about drug running) almost impossible. I literally finished the film five minutes ago and it was a tough choice to decide whether to watch it again to give it a more fair review (but really, not such a tough choice). It isn’t bad in the sense that a lot of these bottom feeders are. It feels like a pretty straight-laced Hollywood movie with professional actors, and Laurence Fishburn in particular does a fine job. Cage on the other hand is barely present in physicality or spirit.
83. Inconceivable (2017) 31%
Challenge: watch the whole movie without thinking about Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride. Inconceivable isn’t just an edgy word for a video on demand B movie, it’s actually really on the nose about the plot. This is a pregnancy thriller. It stars Gina Gershon and Nicky Whelan, both of whom had worked with Nicolas Cage before. A new woman in town is trying to escape an abusive past and ends up befriending a couple, but something doesn’t seem right.
Though a bad movie, the plot and twists are ludicrous enough that it might have ranked higher on this list, but it’s a pregnancy film starring women, and Nicolas Cage exists only to be an authority figure that shows up here and there.
82. Outcast (2014) 5%
I unironically love these crappy Chinese historical films with random European characters. Dragon Blade, The Great Wall, perhaps even counting The Forbidden Kingdom (which also stars Liu Yifei). So I was delighted to learn that Nicolas Cage was in such a film. And then distraught to learn that it actually stars Hayden Christensen. The plot opens suspiciously similarly to Season of the Witch as well. Two crusaders ditch the crusades, only this time they both separately end up in China somehow where they must protect a prince from his evil brother. They fight the brother outside of a cave and that’s pretty much all that happens. There isn’t even any good action.
Cage is a minor character here, but his performance is at least unique in how terrible it is. I suspect he’s supposed to be Scottish, but all I’m certain of is that he shouts and growls a lot. You might think that could make the movie worth watching for a true Cage fan, but Hayden Christensen’s performance is somehow actually worse. Look, I really hate Hayden Christensen as an actor and I don’t think that’s too spicy a hot take for this early in the list.
81. 211 (2018) 5%
This is a movie about a bank robbery that happens while a police officer (Cage) is in the middle of a scared-straight ride-along. So it’s a bit surprising when the film opens with terrorist activity in Afghanistan. When a group of mercenaries don’t get paid for a job, they hatch a scheme to get their money back: rob literally any bank. Unfortunately for them, outside of Grand Theft Auto, being really good at killing people doesn’t make you any good at getting away with bank robbery. This is a film that fails on every level. I might have said it was an okay action movie until one robber evades bullets by zig-zagging.
But on the other hand, it’s our first movie where Nicolas Cage neither has a small role nor does a bad job. I can’t say he did a great job, because the rest of the acting is so incredibly poor he may just look good in comparison, but he’s definitely trying, even shedding some tears over his fallen coworkers. Unfortunately, while the honest cop is a staple Cage role, it’s also easily his worst.
Not featured are Best of Times (TV movie that was really just a failed pilot for a variety show, but you can youtube a pretty good monologue Cage has), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (decent movie but his very minor character doesn't even get a name), Industrial Symphony No. 1 (David Lynch roped Cage and Laura Dern into filming an introduction for this concert during the production of Wild at Heart), Grindhouse (Fake trailer between two movies, but well worth checking out), Dark (Just a director's cut of Dying of the Light, which is not a movie I care to watch again), or Love, Antosha (documentary Cage narrates).
91. Left Behind (2014) 1%
Nicolas Cage has two films on the IMDb’s bottom 100 list, so it makes sense that one of the two would be here at the bottom. Left Behind’s second take on an adaptation of the book series about the rapture was so dull that even critics tied to Christian publications slammed it, with Christianity Today saying they “tried to give the film zero stars, but our tech system won't allow it.”
No one was hopeful that this film would be good, but Cage fans actually kept an eye on this one as the story of a plane that loses half its passengers mid-flight could make for some campy fun. However, Cage isn’t even in this movie much as it bounces around between plots that are never very fleshed out.
90. Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001) 17%
At the height of his career Nicolas Cage actually managed to star in one of his absolute worst films, and it’s a real feat on director Jimmy T. Murakami’s part that he could adapt A Christmas Carol so poorly that it’s the second worst Cage film. Allegedly a good animator (having previously made When the Wind Blows), something must have really went wrong here. This version is heavily embellished, fleshing out a variety of characters and adding unnecessary characters, like not one, but two cartoon mice, and villains that aren’t offered the same chance at redemption that Scrooge gets, undercutting the story. Scrooge is also much younger so that he can be reunited with Belle at the end. The film may have gotten away with these things if it didn’t look absolutely atrocious and have zero energy, but you’d be forgiven for thinking that this was a college project. None of this is Cage’s fault obviously. A casual viewer probably wouldn’t even identify him in his small role as Jacob Marley.
89. USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage (2016) 17%
You would be forgiven for thinking that USS Indianapolis was a completely foreign made film. Or maybe I just want to excuse the fact that I did for the longest time. Anyway, this is not a good film. The staggeringly high 17% of critics who gave this film a fresh score can basically be summarized as saying “it’s a true World War II story and no one else was telling it.” I think we could have waited another 71 years and spared ourselves such a poorly made ripoff of Jaws.
The film does have some great campy moments, like when the Japanese submarine captain’s ghost father tells him that he brings dishonor upon his family for not killing more people. But none of these fun scenes involve Cage himself, as his acting what was at the height of what we call the “Xanax era”.
88. The Humanity Bureau (2017) 25%
A “science-fiction” film wherein Cage plays a government agent totally not in charge of turning poor people into soylent green (spoilers!). This time we’re ripping off Logan, so due to a minor bureaucratic red flag, Cage has to take his secret son to Canada while being chased by Nick from Left 4 Dead 2. I put science-fiction in quotes before because the only thing you need to portray a dystopian future is shots of low-income housing in desert climates. LARPing in abandoned warehouses might have worked for Stalker, but surprisingly we don’t end up with the same level of artistic expression here.
87. The Boy in Blue (1986) 44%
Cage’s career wouldn’t be a perfect curve if he wasn’t in some really bad movies before he became famous, but don’t worry, he has us covered. By the way, this was the hardest movie for me to obtain by some margin. I paid quite a bit for a DVD after failing to get top bid on eBay twice and plenty of waiting in between. When I watched what felt like a small Canadian made-for-TV movie, I understood why. The Boy in Blue is the real life story of Canadian sculler Ned Hanlan. You probably don’t know about Ned Hanlan because you probably don’t know what a sculler is unless you watched The Social Network. That obscurity would be okay if this was remotely a good sports movie, but it’s not. There’s no tension in any sport scenes as we see shots of Ned rowing, his opponents rowing, and then we’re told that Ned is rowing faster. The film largely takes place before Hanlan’s career, so instead of seeing him compete at the world stage, we’re seeing petty dramas that were invented for the film.
Cage does a lot of heavy lifting in his films, but this time he does it literally. It’s obvious that he was only selected for this movie because at the time he was quite muscular and handsome. He brings nothing else to the role and it really stands out as one of his worst performances ever. Word is he got an obscene tattoo put on his back to prevent this kind of casting in the future.
86. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (2001) 28%
The most infamous film from the height of Cage’s career, where he plays a fascist army captain. But he’s not one of those bad German fascists, he’s a good Italian fascist. And instead of oppressing the Greek island he’s taken control of with violence, he oppresses them with really awful singing.
Perhaps you’ve already spotted the problem with this film. Nicolas Cage is woefully cast as an Italian man and Penélope Cruz isn’t a much better Greek. Cage’s greatest strength as an actor is that he has more conviction than any other, more than any sane actor who would care about their image and their career. His greatest weakness however is with accents. But perhaps he disagrees, after all, he just keeps doing them, and this was one of his worst.
85. Bangkok Dangerous (2008) 8%
2008 was the height of Cage’s infamy. A friend and I would joke about seeing this movie, but we wouldn’t have gotten much out of it. A remake of 1999’s Bangkok Dangerous and directed by the same pair of twins, Bangkok Dangerous wasn’t a cynical remake, just a really bad one nonetheless. Cage plays a hitman in Bangkok who shouldn’t start personal relationships because it’s bad for a hitman to do, he does so anyway, and the results are predictable and tedious.
The gimmick of the original film was that the hitman was deaf, which made him fearless. The Pang brothers abandoned this gimmick because they would need to give an actor like Nicolas Cage some good lines. They didn’t.
84. Running with the Devil (2019) 22%
2019, if not overwhelming, had been so very consistent for Cage until I saw this movie. I suppose it’s ambitious in its attempt to create a Martin McDonagh style tableau of characters, the writer/director just forget to put any actual characters in it. This makes following the plot (something about drug running) almost impossible. I literally finished the film five minutes ago and it was a tough choice to decide whether to watch it again to give it a more fair review (but really, not such a tough choice). It isn’t bad in the sense that a lot of these bottom feeders are. It feels like a pretty straight-laced Hollywood movie with professional actors, and Laurence Fishburn in particular does a fine job. Cage on the other hand is barely present in physicality or spirit.
83. Inconceivable (2017) 31%
Challenge: watch the whole movie without thinking about Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride. Inconceivable isn’t just an edgy word for a video on demand B movie, it’s actually really on the nose about the plot. This is a pregnancy thriller. It stars Gina Gershon and Nicky Whelan, both of whom had worked with Nicolas Cage before. A new woman in town is trying to escape an abusive past and ends up befriending a couple, but something doesn’t seem right.
Though a bad movie, the plot and twists are ludicrous enough that it might have ranked higher on this list, but it’s a pregnancy film starring women, and Nicolas Cage exists only to be an authority figure that shows up here and there.
82. Outcast (2014) 5%
I unironically love these crappy Chinese historical films with random European characters. Dragon Blade, The Great Wall, perhaps even counting The Forbidden Kingdom (which also stars Liu Yifei). So I was delighted to learn that Nicolas Cage was in such a film. And then distraught to learn that it actually stars Hayden Christensen. The plot opens suspiciously similarly to Season of the Witch as well. Two crusaders ditch the crusades, only this time they both separately end up in China somehow where they must protect a prince from his evil brother. They fight the brother outside of a cave and that’s pretty much all that happens. There isn’t even any good action.
Cage is a minor character here, but his performance is at least unique in how terrible it is. I suspect he’s supposed to be Scottish, but all I’m certain of is that he shouts and growls a lot. You might think that could make the movie worth watching for a true Cage fan, but Hayden Christensen’s performance is somehow actually worse. Look, I really hate Hayden Christensen as an actor and I don’t think that’s too spicy a hot take for this early in the list.
81. 211 (2018) 5%
This is a movie about a bank robbery that happens while a police officer (Cage) is in the middle of a scared-straight ride-along. So it’s a bit surprising when the film opens with terrorist activity in Afghanistan. When a group of mercenaries don’t get paid for a job, they hatch a scheme to get their money back: rob literally any bank. Unfortunately for them, outside of Grand Theft Auto, being really good at killing people doesn’t make you any good at getting away with bank robbery. This is a film that fails on every level. I might have said it was an okay action movie until one robber evades bullets by zig-zagging.
But on the other hand, it’s our first movie where Nicolas Cage neither has a small role nor does a bad job. I can’t say he did a great job, because the rest of the acting is so incredibly poor he may just look good in comparison, but he’s definitely trying, even shedding some tears over his fallen coworkers. Unfortunately, while the honest cop is a staple Cage role, it’s also easily his worst.
Last edited: