Fantastic performance from Robert Duvall, as always. The movie itself was a little disjointed and slow-moving I think. Would've been more interesting to have flashback scenes or even something in the vein of 'Big Fish' with the tall tale vs reality bit.
Stunning visually. Not only the filming on location, but Godardís use of color motifs (mainly red/blue/white) throughout the film. There was some thematic underlying to the colors (incompatibility?), but from what I know and have read, his use of colors here was influenced by pop art. The film is about a playwright who is offered to fix up a script about an adaptation of Homerís Odyssey by a (vulgar) American producer. Thatís the background setting, but what the film examines is the waning relationship between the playwright and his wife, amongst several other things (artistic ideals vs. money, criticism of producers/filmmakers etc).
It can be a bit alienating emotionally but that is common on a first viewing of many of his films. Some scenes that were meant to be powerful, lacked emotional force because the relationship never really feels real. Several techniques Godard uses can sometimes make you almost too conscious of the fact that you are in fact watching a movie. If youíve read the Odyssey before, youíll enjoy the references to it throughout. The score is used arbitrarily throughout the movie (Godardís unwillingness to yield to what is traditional), but is used well with the overall tone of the film.
Some shots from the movie (they don't spoil anything)...
I just saw Harry Brown. I'll give it a 6/10. Spoilers may follow.
The character development would have been heavily helped along with some flashback sequences of the main character Harry's life. Specifically his relationship with his wife and his friendship with Leonard. This would have given me some emotional impact from theirs deaths which was supposed to be the driving engine behind the main characters transformation.
I think they spent too much time meandering around for what should have been essentially a one character story. I also didn't like the ending which should have been a personal event involving the main character. Instead they threw me into some weird block war riot that came seemingly out of no where that didn't fit into the tone of the film. Along with a betrayal twist from a character that I was barely aware Harry even had some kind of relationship with, and seemed to be tacked on for convenience.
Another thing I have to discuss is this chick Frampton. Why is she in this movie, and why did they insist on suddenly making her the main character at the end?
Based on a true story. Naive teenagers plot to murder one of their own, who has been too much of a bully to them.
When you have a handful of dipshit teenagers hatching a plot to kill someone, and openly telling other people about it as if it's just a typical point of conversation, you just know it isn't going to end well.
I found the premise for this to be a little forced. I know it's based on a true story and all, but it just seemed like they came to the conclusion to kill the guy a bit too willy-nilly. Like, why not just disassociate yourself with the guy? Couldn't have been all that hard. But again, they were pretty much all dipshits, so I guess that's OK.
The movie had a very "raw" feel to it, and did a great job at building tension. It's seriously one of the only movies I've ever seen that gave me a palpable sense of nervousness. The 'payoff' scene was just fantastic. Some of the sex/nudity seemed tacked on just for the hell of it.
judging by first 40mins or so and the rest i skimmed through, this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. what an utter pile of sh*t. the two lead women are so horrific, although the material they had to work with was unbelievably bad. besides, they could only talk for the first third. their car breaks down, they argue, walk through the woods, find a house, he drugs them, one almost escapes, he catches her, end of act 1.
next there is a big build up to this operation of joining three people, what he calls "reverse siamese twins". the concept was so sick i did feel a bit nauseous, but then came the operation. all you see is him pulling a couple of teeth out and a little bit of slicing of skin. in total the big operation scene lasted about 3mins probably before it cut to a shot of him going to bed. he wakes up the following morning with them lying on the floor, apparently now attached, although it's the most unconvincing effect and looks even more f*cking ridiculous than you could imagine, what a waste of time.
i gave up at this point, skipped through it to the end. the front of the centipede was a japanese guy who seemed to spend the entire movie yelling in japanese while the two girls mumbled for obvious reasons, f*cking annoying. i also saw a bit where he put a newspaper in the guys mouth and asked them to bring it to him. then some guys showed up, i thnk he tried to drug them, then the mad surgeon got shot in the head, and the 3 conjoined people were left there, either for a sequel or just to die. THE END
what a piece of crap. words can't really describe how bad this is.
Last edited by thebirdman : 09-03-2010 at 08:23 PM.
It was actually terrific. Definitely something you can wait to see on video (I tend to think you only need to see visually stellar movies in theater unless it's just too good to wait) but make sure that you do. It was smart and funny and a unique story that was really dialed into some modern archetypes that haven't been represented in film much. The sex scenes were pretty hot too.
I really thought an intentionally bad b-horror bloodbath movie with all the 3D bells and whistles and a surprisingly good cast had the makings of a good time but I must say I was disappointed. The 3D stuff (with the exception of hilarious gratuitous 3D tit shots) wasn't nearly as cool as I'd hoped. It felt like they should have just gone for broke with the comedy instead of toeing a serious line. It was definitely fun and ridiculous but it could have been a 30 minute short paired with some other goofy 3D shorts and been a lot better. Definitely no point in seeing this if you don't go 3D. Big ups to the special effects makeup team, they nailed it.
Last edited by Lamar Doom : 09-04-2010 at 12:07 AM.
Ugh. The directing in this movie was so terrible and heavy handed. The dialog was stilted and cliched. Clooney didn't do much acting, he was there just to look good in a suit like always. If it weren't for some really nice shots (props to the cinematographer) I would rate this movie much worse. 4/10
I had no clue Inside Man was directed by Spike Lee until just now.
On a more relevant note, id go with Donnie Brasco, vapid. Depp and Pacino both have very good peformances and its one of my personal favorites. Haven't seen Un Prophete yet tho so I can't comment on that.
Three juvenile delinquents arrive at a correctional center and are put under the care of an experienced guard.
Don't be shied away from this by the poster - this is 100% in American English. The synopsis is a bit misleading as well; this isn't as "old-guy-imparting-wisdom-on-young-guys" as you might think. And even though the movie takes place in a correctional center for juvenile delinquents, many of the conventional prison movie trappings can be found here. Though, this is definitely one of the better ones I've seen in quite some time. Plenty of subtlety here, they definitely don't hit you over the head with certain plot points.
The movie had a documentary feel to it, and as someone who has formerly worked in a prison, it felt pretty authentic. The cinematography was good and they even used tasteful shaky cam(!). I also loved the score, but I'm a bit biased in that department, since pretty much the entire thing was done by one of my current favorite bands, Balmorhea. If you like prison movies you should definitely check this out.