Django Unchained and Les Miserables the week before...I don't rate out of 10, just out of 4stars. Les Miserables gets between 2 1/2 and 3. Decent, but overwrought. It's the most singy musical I've ever seen. All the dialogue and too many times far too unnecessary. Quality work from the actors. Crowe can sing, tho he's not a singer the way Jackman or Hathaway are. But he's good. Jackman is great and Hathaway is great in a role that ends real early.
But the move just doesn't stop. It doesn't even open and is too relentless in what it's trying to do. It jumps years and then drowns in single scenes and in days that feel like months. The love story is rushed and not worth the attention.
Django Unchained is between 3 and 3 1/2 stars. But it's more likely 3. In fact, it is. It's obviously interesting and it's funny, with some quality work by the actors. But the last half hour is a waste. Some of the music is stupid and it's especially stupid when I hear what I hear towards the end. The violence in the end is just stupid.
Originally Posted by Stuckey
awesome and powerful. second time seeing it and I appreciate it so much more
may be I'm just bias towards Spike Lee but I thought the cast did a great job
It's one of his 3 best films. I saw it three times in 8 days (I got free entry twice) and the the second and third times are something else. I've seen it since, on video. I think it's a masterpiece.
Originally Posted by Patrick Chewing
Just one failed, miserable attempt after attempt to be the film Leaving Las Vegas.
Leaving Las Vegas? I can't see any kind of similarity, outside of alcoholism.
Originally Posted by KevinNYC
If you've seen Drive and have Netflix streaming, check out the beginning of this old James Caan movie called Thief.
I've had that DVR'd from TCM for quite a while now. Time to watch it.
Saw Zero Dark Thirty yesterday. It's getting a ton of backlash, but I'm not really getting it. I thought it was excellent. It's completely plot driven, so there's almost no character development. That definitely hurt it in spots...
Overall I'd give it a high 80s.
agreed with most of this. nice review.
it felt like an episode of law and order. unemotional, yet gripping.
Silver Linings Playbook - 7/10
This movie was carried by the great chemistry between Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. The scenes they had together were almost perfect. But then the movie almost lost me with the stupid side plot involving Pat's father's gambling and superstition. The entire scene after he loses the bet and everyone gets back from the Eagles game was frustratingly bad. I could've done without most of that part of the story. Thankfully it was redeemed with the charming dance competition and ending. Oh and as a sports fan, it frustrated the hell out of me seeing an Asomugha Eagles jersey given when this stroy was supposed to be set. COME ON! Still a good movie overall. And since it seems like the Oscar is going to come down to either Jennifer Lawrence or Jessica Chastain, between the two performances, Lawrence should win in a landslide.
Also out of recent ones I saw:
Zero Dark Thirty - 7/10
Bernie - 7/10
Dredd - 5/10
Skyfall - 9/10
Killing Them Softly - 8/10
This is 40 - 6/10
John Dies at the End - WTF/10 (or a 6)
The cinematography and score are outstanding and deserve Oscars. Naomi Watts was very good but I'll be honest, her performance is overhyped. 75% of it is looking in dire straits due to GREAT makeup. The person that deserves the acting praise is Tom Holland, the kid that plays Lucas. He's the actual lead, gets the majority of the screen time (for good reason), and absolutely destroys it, at 16 years old.
There're things I had problems with, the extreme contrivance of the reunion scene, the lack of scope of the tsunami other than wide landscape shots. It just felt very centered on the white victims, of which there were many in reality. Which is fine, I'm not going to lay racist claims at the film's feet like a lot of detractors are, I understand you've got to play to your audience, but it still felt wrong. I don't know how they could've done it differently, I don't make movies, but some semblance of appreciation for the complete and utter disaster that happened to tens of thousands of Thai people would've been appreciated. There a LOT of magical Thais in the movie. Maybe it would've made it overly long, I don't know, it just felt entirely too centered and focused.
Anyway, problems stated, it's still a very good movie and you should watch it for Tom Holland, if nothing else.
Not sure really. I mean I am sure that it's very, very good, but I don't know if it's great, per se. Some very memorable dialogue, some excellent characters (Samuel L Jackson!), but I don't know if it's just that I'm not a Jamie Foxx fan or what, but from the second Christoph Waltz's character was shot, and Foxx became the unquestionable lead and the bloodbath ensued, the movie went downhill at an alarming rate. The last half an hour was completely predictable and devoid of the style and out-of-left-field turns that QT is famous for.
So I don't know whether it's just that I don't think that Foxx's character was interesting or compelling enough to carry the film, or just that it decided to fulfill every predictable revenge film convention in the last half hour, but it just was like a different movie to me, it was so weak.
That said, it shouldn't negate all the positive aspects, such as its visceral portrayal of the South during that time period (which actually feels like satire/surrealism - great job by Tarantino capturing the absurdity of it all. It is almost funny until you realize that it's not made up, it's very real). Especially Big Daddy's speech to the woman about how to treat Django, and basically every word that came out of DiCaprio's mouth.
I also felt that Walton Goggins' character had sooo much more potential. Reducing him to a quaternary villain that you know is going to get waxed was a criminal misuse of him.
So atrocious, I walked out within the first 25 minutes.
Gosling's delivery and charisma was awesome, but the rest was god awful. It was beyond cheesy. I thought it was going to be a gritty time piece, based on real world events. At least closer in spirit to the Untouchables.
This movie was like Dick Tracy, without acknowledging how absurd it was. The performances cliche, over the top and cartoony. The score, horrendously cheesy. The dialogue? If you could put it on chips, it'd be nachos. Sean Penn? Over the top and corny.
The look of the film, overly stylized and a cheap imitation of Zach Snyder. Just an atrocious experience.
The movie acts like it's being earnest, yet it's heinously over the top and whimsical.
The entire idea / concept of a raid in which we murked Bin Laden in a wealthy Pakistan suburb, where he NEVER left the compound, and NO ONE ever saw him. A raid and an assassination where we were never given actual proof of life or death. Yet we gloated and released pics, video when we caught and executed Sadaam and his sons.
It's a total "Wag the Dog" scenario. We get no concrete official information on the raid. It changed week after week, details switched around. We get no official pictures. The body is immediately dumped at sea (convenient) and the only "official" story we get is a Hollywood produced image, which pre programs people into believe it as reality.
Dude is a CIA asset, a code name, a vague boogeyman used as a catalyst to start conflicts. Bin Laden was probably killed years ago. Either because of his knowledge, or health. Hell, he may have even been killed in a mountain collapsing "daisy cutter" bomb in the Afghany mountains in 2001 or 2002. He's a patsy. He's an image. An idea. Not a REAL person.
Look up the name Tim Osman on google. Do your research. Bin Laden's family is American / Saudi money. Subcontracted by American business / CIA, and in cahoots with organizations linking them to the Bush family. One of the shadiest families of all-time, with their global power schemes. The Bin Laden family lived state side. In the late 70's Tim Osman aka Bin Laden was allowed to tour military bases via the CIA. Trained and armed to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. He was a US sponsored and trained asset.
CIA admitted to fake actors essentially playing Bin Laden in "leaked" tapes for the duration of the 2000s. Always conveniently leaked at important or pressing times to fit agendas. And small physical details of Bin Laden changing from video to video, and NEVER aging from videos from the late 90s till the late 2000s. Even though it was FACT he had MAJOR health problems.
We found Sadaam Hussein. A man with considerable wealth, resources and an entire country at his disposal, hiding in a ditch. But it took us 10 years to find Bin Laden? Nah ... I'm not buying. I have a functioning brain.