I'll second this. I finally saw it last night. The story is pretty straightforward. However its very well done. The acting by all is top notch. A bonus is its only 95 minutes long
-
PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!
PCF at the Movies (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
I'll second this. I finally saw it last night. The story is pretty straightforward. However its very well done. The acting by all is top notch. A bonus is its only 95 minutes long
I'll second this. I finally saw it last night. The story is pretty straightforward. However its very well done. The acting by all is top notch. A bonus is its only 95 minutes long
Sadly, the star of the film, Anton Yelchin, was killed a little over a week ago when his own car pinned him to either his brick mailbox or a security fence, causing him to suffocate to death. Brutal way to die.
I had read that. Sucks. Great young talent.
Looks like they are going to remake "The Man From Nowhere". This is a great movie. I can't see how they will improve on it, or even come close to equaling this movies greatness. If anyone hasn't seen this flick you need to.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/75583
Watched 50 Shades of Grey last night. No real reason, but it was "ending" on HBO on demand, so I decided why not. And then I learned why not. Wow. It was truly horrible. Worse than The Boy Next Door with J Lo. Way worse. Worse than a movie which features a character gifting his English teacher a "first edition" of the Iliad.
Since its publication, there have been clickbait articles counting down the worst lines from the book, but I wonder if anyone has tried to compile the filmed versions of those lines into a video. There are an overabundance of results if you try to search "worst of 50 shades of grey" on youtube, so I didn't even try to comb through them. But most of the lines are amazing. At least once per scene you will be incredulous that this movie was even released. The acting is truly porno quality, but - as @H|Q said in response to one of my texts - there are no porno quality close-ups. Although you do get some Dakota Johnson shots that are worthwhile.
I can't imagine what these people were thinking as they made this movie. And I further can't believe that they're making two more. Literally from the moment the movie opened it was plainly obvious how horrible it was going to be and it never lets up. It's just wall to wall shit for two hours (and how the fuck is this movie over two hours?). I don't even know what the big deal was for women watching this thing. Do they know there is porn on the internet? I mean, not a lot, but you can find it if you try.
Since its publication, there have been clickbait articles counting down the worst lines from the book, but I wonder if anyone has tried to compile the filmed versions of those lines into a video. There are an overabundance of results if you try to search "worst of 50 shades of grey" on youtube, so I didn't even try to comb through them. But most of the lines are amazing. At least once per scene you will be incredulous that this movie was even released. The acting is truly porno quality, but - as @H|Q said in response to one of my texts - there are no porno quality close-ups. Although you do get some Dakota Johnson shots that are worthwhile.
I can't imagine what these people were thinking as they made this movie. And I further can't believe that they're making two more. Literally from the moment the movie opened it was plainly obvious how horrible it was going to be and it never lets up. It's just wall to wall shit for two hours (and how the fuck is this movie over two hours?). I don't even know what the big deal was for women watching this thing. Do they know there is porn on the internet? I mean, not a lot, but you can find it if you try.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. This whole "Mommy Porn" sub-genre of literature is a joke and it sets unrealistic expectations for men. It's like a Disney movie for unhappy 40-year-old housewives. And of course I get the "why don't you do that?" look from my wife at various parts throughout the movie. In response, I showed her a porn and asked her the same question in return.
Needless to say, the touch of a woman escaped me that evening...
I'd be like, "Alright game on, let's do an addition for the dungeon." Then half way through the addition tell her that since I'm the dom I make the decisions and the addition is now a poker room and that she better like it like a good sub.
Haha. To be fair, I kinda did that with our basement.
H|Q
Flush
Just for the record. It wasn't me that said that in group text. It was someone else. I have not seen the movie outside of flipping channels and having my attention held by a naked woman, until either she or the guy opened their mouths. Then it was *Click, next channel*
Watched Purge: Election Year and Tickled last weekend.
I liked the first Purge and I really liked the second. I would say this is in line with the second. Not quite campy, but it's definitely playing its hand face up in drawing connections between current politicians and events and the dystopian fantasy of the movie.
The enjoyment of the movie for me is the aesthetic and getting to hang out in this world more so than the story, the writing, the performances, or even the kill scene set pieces. Not a lot to say, though - it is exactly what you expect and it is perfectly competent in being what it is. However you felt about the second movie, you're likely to feel the same about this one.
Ticked, on the other hand, I have a lot to say about, but really can't for fear of spoiling it. In fact, if you are a fan of documentaries, don't even watch the trailer below. Just watch the movie. It's great and entertaining and cleverly made in all the ways good documentaries should be. And it's even better than that. Just watch it.
For those who are more on the fence, the shortest, least spoiler-y trailer I could find:
Nothing more to say without spoiling, but obviously I loved it.
I liked the first Purge and I really liked the second. I would say this is in line with the second. Not quite campy, but it's definitely playing its hand face up in drawing connections between current politicians and events and the dystopian fantasy of the movie.
The enjoyment of the movie for me is the aesthetic and getting to hang out in this world more so than the story, the writing, the performances, or even the kill scene set pieces. Not a lot to say, though - it is exactly what you expect and it is perfectly competent in being what it is. However you felt about the second movie, you're likely to feel the same about this one.
Ticked, on the other hand, I have a lot to say about, but really can't for fear of spoiling it. In fact, if you are a fan of documentaries, don't even watch the trailer below. Just watch the movie. It's great and entertaining and cleverly made in all the ways good documentaries should be. And it's even better than that. Just watch it.
For those who are more on the fence, the shortest, least spoiler-y trailer I could find:
Nothing more to say without spoiling, but obviously I loved it.
Finally saw The Big Short and I thought it sucked. I can see why people enjoyed it - it was snarky and had a structure that caters to short attention spans - but as a film, I thought it was disappointing at best. The filmmakers could not have seemed more satisfied with themselves for calling out the big banks and the credit rating agencies. We get it: they were complete swindlers. We don't need to be told exactly what to think at every moment. Just show us.
I think it was the decision to have Gosling narrate that doomed the movie for me. It was just too on the nose with every word. By far the best part was Christian Bale's performance, but it was drowned in a sea of overacting and explicit moralizing. And the asides with Margot Robbie, Anthony Bordain, and Selena Gomez were totally worthless.
I think it was the decision to have Gosling narrate that doomed the movie for me. It was just too on the nose with every word. By far the best part was Christian Bale's performance, but it was drowned in a sea of overacting and explicit moralizing. And the asides with Margot Robbie, Anthony Bordain, and Selena Gomez were totally worthless.
bergs
Royal Flush
I felt like the big short was 3 years too late, but I didn't think it was a bad movie. Frankly I really enjoyed Steve Carrell's parts - he's just like the character in the book, and he was an asshole, which I really enjoyed.
Chicken Rob
Full House
This is exactly how I felt about it.
3 years too late. Carrell was entertaining. Ok movie if it were 2012.
ohio3302016
Flush
I enjoyed The Big Short.
Your thoughts on Bale's performance are interesting. I thought he was the one who totally overacted in this movie. To the point it was embarrassingly bad at times. I thought Steve Carell was outstanding.
I can understand someone thinking that of Bale's performance, but imo he has a fair amount of latitude given that his character has (or at least appeared to me to have) a social disorder.
ohio3302016
Flush
Seeing a lot of people put out "Best of 2016 So Far" lists, so figured I'd have a go. Some with comments where warranted.
TOP FIVE SO FAR (in order)
5. Midnight Special
- Looking forward to a rewatch which I could see moving this up or down.
4. Everybody Wants Some!!
- Still the most enjoyable mindless watch of the year.
3. Green Room
- Saw it twice in the theater and it doesn't lose any of the tension a second time through.
2. The Nice Guys
- The funniest movie I saw all year and only comes in second as "most enjoyable mindless watch" because the plot is actually complicated as fuck.
1. The Witch
- Perfect in every respect. Saw it three times in the theater and would go see it again if it were still there.
HONORABLE MENTIONS (random order)
Weiner
- I'll have to see it again to decide, but in contention for my favorite campaign documentary of all time.
The Lobster
10 Cloverfield Lane
Tickled
Where to Invade Next
- Just Michael Moore doing his thing, but it's the best he's done his thing in years.
MOST WELCOME SURPRISES (random order)
Criminal
- Still seems to be overlooked months later, but a very good genre film with a great cast.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping
- Saw it totally panned by several critics whose opinions I respect, but it was hilarious.
The Jungle Book
WORST SO FAR (random order)
The Do-Over
- Horrid production quality, horrid writing, horrid acting. It did nothing right other than casting Paula Patton.
I Saw the Light
The Boss
- Proof that Michelle McCartney can be unfunny.
The Divergent Series: Allegiant
BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT
Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru
- Berg and I were talking this weekend about Joe Berlinger's last film - Whitey - being a disappointment as well. Not sure what's going on with him, but he has some of the best docs of all time under his belt - Brother's Keeper, the Paradise Lost series - so I'm not giving up on him. Still, this was not very compelling. I think he's called it a Maysles-style doc, but I'd just call it an infomercial for Tony Robbins.
MISSED BUT INTEND TO SEE BEFORE YEAR END
The Neon Demon
Creative Control
Equals
Swiss Army Man
A Bigger Splash
Maggie's Plan
Hail, Caesar!
Krisha
Mountains May Depart
Weiner-Dog
Cemetery of Splendor
Sunset Song
Our Kind of Traitor
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
The Infiltrator
TOP FIVE SO FAR (in order)
5. Midnight Special
- Looking forward to a rewatch which I could see moving this up or down.
4. Everybody Wants Some!!
- Still the most enjoyable mindless watch of the year.
3. Green Room
- Saw it twice in the theater and it doesn't lose any of the tension a second time through.
2. The Nice Guys
- The funniest movie I saw all year and only comes in second as "most enjoyable mindless watch" because the plot is actually complicated as fuck.
1. The Witch
- Perfect in every respect. Saw it three times in the theater and would go see it again if it were still there.
HONORABLE MENTIONS (random order)
Weiner
- I'll have to see it again to decide, but in contention for my favorite campaign documentary of all time.
The Lobster
10 Cloverfield Lane
Tickled
Where to Invade Next
- Just Michael Moore doing his thing, but it's the best he's done his thing in years.
MOST WELCOME SURPRISES (random order)
Criminal
- Still seems to be overlooked months later, but a very good genre film with a great cast.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping
- Saw it totally panned by several critics whose opinions I respect, but it was hilarious.
The Jungle Book
WORST SO FAR (random order)
The Do-Over
- Horrid production quality, horrid writing, horrid acting. It did nothing right other than casting Paula Patton.
I Saw the Light
The Boss
- Proof that Michelle McCartney can be unfunny.
The Divergent Series: Allegiant
BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT
Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru
- Berg and I were talking this weekend about Joe Berlinger's last film - Whitey - being a disappointment as well. Not sure what's going on with him, but he has some of the best docs of all time under his belt - Brother's Keeper, the Paradise Lost series - so I'm not giving up on him. Still, this was not very compelling. I think he's called it a Maysles-style doc, but I'd just call it an infomercial for Tony Robbins.
MISSED BUT INTEND TO SEE BEFORE YEAR END
The Neon Demon
Creative Control
Equals
Swiss Army Man
A Bigger Splash
Maggie's Plan
Hail, Caesar!
Krisha
Mountains May Depart
Weiner-Dog
Cemetery of Splendor
Sunset Song
Our Kind of Traitor
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
The Infiltrator
Saw Star Trek Beyond last night.
Totally enjoyable, very capably made despite my disappointment that JJ Abrams chose not to establish full trilogy cred by jumping ship for number three and handing off to Justin Lin of Fast and Furious fame. But Justin Lin is a professional for sure and the excellent technical work was evident throughout. The grand, sweeping shot upon entering the Federation's new station was magnificent and didn't rely solely on being a continuous shot, but rather the specifics of what the shot could show.
The actual design of the station would be more impressive if it weren't essentially a replica of one of the stations described in Neal Stephenson's most recent book, Seveneves. Still, it's a feat to communicate exactly what is going on in one more or less static shot and without having to demonstrate the functioning of the environment as Christoper Nolan did when showing humanity's new home in Interstellar. And they introduce a compelling and exciting new character who I hope will be back for future installments, but unfortunately did not have enough time to work out how to send off Anton Yelchin's Chekov after his recent death (though the closing credits memorialize both Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin).
Almost all of the above is meant as praise and I have nothing overtly negative to say about the movie, but somehow it still sort of registers as merely passable for me. It's essentially an episode of what I imagine the rebooted show would be with the length extended to two hours and the budget expanded to probably around $200 million. Which is to say, it's fine.
But I'm not really sure if it's much of an accomplishment to make movies that could exist entirely comfortably as a two- or three-part episode arc on television. Why are these movies rather than a series? It started as an interesting exercise in rejuvenating the franchise by departing from the previous timeline, thereby creating the possibility for shifts in storylines and character, but in Star Trek Beyond the substance of the characters and movement of the plot contain nothing that could not have existed had the timelines never diverged.
Even Simon Pegg's humor, which should be evident throughout given his co-writing credit on the script, doesn't really show through. There are some cheeky lines as there have been in the previous films, but nothing overly creative or subversive. There's one line that could be interpreted as a jab at Shatner's hair plugs, but that's about as meta as it gets. Zachary Quinto was as good as he has been all along as Spock - and that's very good - but the writing didn't do full justice to the character imo.
As I watched the movie I enjoyed it even as I was aware that I was getting more fat than meat, but ultimately it's a middle-of-the-road Star Trek picture. Good, not great, and certainly not essential.
Totally enjoyable, very capably made despite my disappointment that JJ Abrams chose not to establish full trilogy cred by jumping ship for number three and handing off to Justin Lin of Fast and Furious fame. But Justin Lin is a professional for sure and the excellent technical work was evident throughout. The grand, sweeping shot upon entering the Federation's new station was magnificent and didn't rely solely on being a continuous shot, but rather the specifics of what the shot could show.
The actual design of the station would be more impressive if it weren't essentially a replica of one of the stations described in Neal Stephenson's most recent book, Seveneves. Still, it's a feat to communicate exactly what is going on in one more or less static shot and without having to demonstrate the functioning of the environment as Christoper Nolan did when showing humanity's new home in Interstellar. And they introduce a compelling and exciting new character who I hope will be back for future installments, but unfortunately did not have enough time to work out how to send off Anton Yelchin's Chekov after his recent death (though the closing credits memorialize both Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin).
Almost all of the above is meant as praise and I have nothing overtly negative to say about the movie, but somehow it still sort of registers as merely passable for me. It's essentially an episode of what I imagine the rebooted show would be with the length extended to two hours and the budget expanded to probably around $200 million. Which is to say, it's fine.
But I'm not really sure if it's much of an accomplishment to make movies that could exist entirely comfortably as a two- or three-part episode arc on television. Why are these movies rather than a series? It started as an interesting exercise in rejuvenating the franchise by departing from the previous timeline, thereby creating the possibility for shifts in storylines and character, but in Star Trek Beyond the substance of the characters and movement of the plot contain nothing that could not have existed had the timelines never diverged.
Even Simon Pegg's humor, which should be evident throughout given his co-writing credit on the script, doesn't really show through. There are some cheeky lines as there have been in the previous films, but nothing overly creative or subversive. There's one line that could be interpreted as a jab at Shatner's hair plugs, but that's about as meta as it gets. Zachary Quinto was as good as he has been all along as Spock - and that's very good - but the writing didn't do full justice to the character imo.
As I watched the movie I enjoyed it even as I was aware that I was getting more fat than meat, but ultimately it's a middle-of-the-road Star Trek picture. Good, not great, and certainly not essential.
Saw Suicide Squad.
Been looking forward to this one for a while. Then I read this week from one of my favorite movie critics, Richard Lawson, that the movie was horrible (his review). But called it boring, poorly edited, poorly written, and complained that it fetishized guns and violence. He also pointed out that the movie was recut by a company that produces movie trailers and that the final cut was not approved by the writer/director David Ayer. (Richard was inundated with hate by fanboys who hadn't even seen the movie when they read and were mad about his review. Not only did they tweet him things like this (permalink to image here) - which, while obviously hateful, is kind of hilarious as a "complaint" by nerds - they actually started a petition at Change.org to have Rotten Tomatoes taken offline.)
I'm more than alright with fetishizing guns and violence, but the other stuff made me a little worried, but honestly, this isn't exactly supposed to be a Wim Wender movie. It's literally supposed to be a comic book movie and I'm totally alright with it looking like a 2-hour long trailer if it can be as amazing as the trailer above. But it wasn't. It was bad. So bad. It is the worst thing that a movie of this kind can be: dull.
And unfortunately as much as I was pulling for David Ayer, the writing is terrible. It's not really the dialogue. While many of the lines really do not work, I think that's more the fault of the editing, the failure to give the dialogue the dynamic bounce it needed. The bad writing shows through most clearly in the plot and the character building. Character motivation is either incoherent or unpersuasive.
Richard Lawson also complained about the style of the movie, but I have to disagree. The style is overwrought and gauche, but that could work well for something like this that isn't intended to have any elegance or grace in the first place, but to be a vomiting of id. And that's what I was looking for in the movie, which is why it didn't necessarily kill all my hopes that a trailer company had recut the movie. I can listen to and love garbage pop music written and produced by a corporate songwriting team. Unfortunately this falls well short of even that line. They haven't quite figured out how to produce the Carly Rae Jepsen version of movies just yet.
I'm hoping against hope that when this is released on blu-ray we get both the theatrical cut and Ayer's director's cut. I'd love to see this put together in any other way.
Been looking forward to this one for a while. Then I read this week from one of my favorite movie critics, Richard Lawson, that the movie was horrible (his review). But called it boring, poorly edited, poorly written, and complained that it fetishized guns and violence. He also pointed out that the movie was recut by a company that produces movie trailers and that the final cut was not approved by the writer/director David Ayer. (Richard was inundated with hate by fanboys who hadn't even seen the movie when they read and were mad about his review. Not only did they tweet him things like this (permalink to image here) - which, while obviously hateful, is kind of hilarious as a "complaint" by nerds - they actually started a petition at Change.org to have Rotten Tomatoes taken offline.)
I'm more than alright with fetishizing guns and violence, but the other stuff made me a little worried, but honestly, this isn't exactly supposed to be a Wim Wender movie. It's literally supposed to be a comic book movie and I'm totally alright with it looking like a 2-hour long trailer if it can be as amazing as the trailer above. But it wasn't. It was bad. So bad. It is the worst thing that a movie of this kind can be: dull.
And unfortunately as much as I was pulling for David Ayer, the writing is terrible. It's not really the dialogue. While many of the lines really do not work, I think that's more the fault of the editing, the failure to give the dialogue the dynamic bounce it needed. The bad writing shows through most clearly in the plot and the character building. Character motivation is either incoherent or unpersuasive.
Richard Lawson also complained about the style of the movie, but I have to disagree. The style is overwrought and gauche, but that could work well for something like this that isn't intended to have any elegance or grace in the first place, but to be a vomiting of id. And that's what I was looking for in the movie, which is why it didn't necessarily kill all my hopes that a trailer company had recut the movie. I can listen to and love garbage pop music written and produced by a corporate songwriting team. Unfortunately this falls well short of even that line. They haven't quite figured out how to produce the Carly Rae Jepsen version of movies just yet.
I'm hoping against hope that when this is released on blu-ray we get both the theatrical cut and Ayer's director's cut. I'd love to see this put together in any other way.
Last edited:
I'm just now reading reviews of Suicide Squad apart from Richard Lawson's and holy shit are people insane. Yes, the movie was horrible, but it wasn't horrible because of its "problematic depictions of women". This piece in Buzzfeed, representative of much of the discussion, is very concerned with, among other things, Harley Quinn's representation in the movie. And this piece in Vanity Fair is very concerned with Harley Quinn's portrayal in the original show (her origin), the comics, and finally, the movie. Both - and the several reviews I've read that take time to lecture on the subject - are horribly misguided.
To summarize, we should be alarmed because Harley Quinn is in an abusive relationship, because she luxuriates in her abuse, and because - according to at least one reviewer - her suffering is used to depict "male pain".
The simplest and most obvious response is that these morons are falling victim to the tendency to assume a depiction is an endorsement. Just because a character is a murderer doesn't mean the author endorses murder. And all of us non-Tipper Gore, PMRC idiots have recognized that for quite some time with regard to violent movies and video games and music. So why do these professional critics and culture writers have such difficulty understanding that the same is true of Harley Quinn here? Probably because they're primed to always stand at attention and repudiate "victimization" wherever it's found. Except this time it's found in a fucking comic book, so they look like retards.
Which brings us to the next rebuttal: it's a fucking comic book movie. And a dark one at that. It's not supposed to be realistic. It's not supposed to be a model for relationships. It's supposed to be twisted and deranged. In fact, I was waiting for it to get truly deranged à la Marla Singer's line to Tyler Durden in Fight Club, "I want to have your abortion," which was unfortunately cut from the film. But it never gets truly scary. It remains a comic book suitable for consumption by 13-year olds. And yet this is till too much for the little snowflakes.
Ordinarily this is where people complain we've become a nation of pussies, which we have, but more concerning, the fucking art critics who are supposed to stand up for Piss Christ and everything else are now caught up in this bullshit. How are we supposed to produce anything transgressive if the people who are supposed to explain art to the masses complain that it's not in line with their values?
To summarize, we should be alarmed because Harley Quinn is in an abusive relationship, because she luxuriates in her abuse, and because - according to at least one reviewer - her suffering is used to depict "male pain".
The simplest and most obvious response is that these morons are falling victim to the tendency to assume a depiction is an endorsement. Just because a character is a murderer doesn't mean the author endorses murder. And all of us non-Tipper Gore, PMRC idiots have recognized that for quite some time with regard to violent movies and video games and music. So why do these professional critics and culture writers have such difficulty understanding that the same is true of Harley Quinn here? Probably because they're primed to always stand at attention and repudiate "victimization" wherever it's found. Except this time it's found in a fucking comic book, so they look like retards.
Which brings us to the next rebuttal: it's a fucking comic book movie. And a dark one at that. It's not supposed to be realistic. It's not supposed to be a model for relationships. It's supposed to be twisted and deranged. In fact, I was waiting for it to get truly deranged à la Marla Singer's line to Tyler Durden in Fight Club, "I want to have your abortion," which was unfortunately cut from the film. But it never gets truly scary. It remains a comic book suitable for consumption by 13-year olds. And yet this is till too much for the little snowflakes.
Ordinarily this is where people complain we've become a nation of pussies, which we have, but more concerning, the fucking art critics who are supposed to stand up for Piss Christ and everything else are now caught up in this bullshit. How are we supposed to produce anything transgressive if the people who are supposed to explain art to the masses complain that it's not in line with their values?
Headed out see Sausage Party. I'll post my reviews later
tommythecat
Flush
I enjoyed it. It was quite hilarious though a bit overly corny (no pun intended!)/cliche at times. Based on who the writers/stars are I was definitely expecting it to be.
I enjoyed it a lot. There were some serious gut wrenching funny moments. The second act was a little "meh" at times. Overall if you like raunchy, offensive humor. Then you will like this. The pretty much make fun of every race possible. The food orgy at the end of the flick is down right filthy fun.
There's been nothing I've been overwhelmingly interested in at the movies over the past week or so. But I did watch a movie I somehow missed from a few of years ago: A Teacher.
The trailer is more than you need to know to make a decision. It's really heavy, really dark, really tormenting and the performances are incredible. I was pretty shocked to see it in the 30s on Rotten Tomatoes. I haven't bothered reading any of the reviews, but I will because I can't imagine what the criticisms will be.
It's pretty much everything I love in a movie: succinct, focused, and devoted to its vision. Reminded me a lot of my favorite movie from last year, Queen of Earth. Lindsay Burdge isn't quite up to Elisabeth Moss from Queen of Earth, but she's damn close. If you're at all tempted, give it a shot. It's only an hour and fifteen minutes and its on Netflix.
The trailer is more than you need to know to make a decision. It's really heavy, really dark, really tormenting and the performances are incredible. I was pretty shocked to see it in the 30s on Rotten Tomatoes. I haven't bothered reading any of the reviews, but I will because I can't imagine what the criticisms will be.
It's pretty much everything I love in a movie: succinct, focused, and devoted to its vision. Reminded me a lot of my favorite movie from last year, Queen of Earth. Lindsay Burdge isn't quite up to Elisabeth Moss from Queen of Earth, but she's damn close. If you're at all tempted, give it a shot. It's only an hour and fifteen minutes and its on Netflix.
Another one that I'd missed until last night: Snow on tha Bluff.
That trailer isn't the best representation of the look or feel of the film, but it's the only one that doesn't spoil some of the best scenes (don't watch any of the others if you have any chance of watching the movie). The actual film is a found footage movie following s a street level dealer/hustler named Curtis after he comes into possession of a video camera and tells one of his friends to film everything he and his crew does ("I don't care if it's a robbin', it's a rape, it's a murder, it's a killin' - we gon' film it all!").
Found footage movies are a dime a dozen nowadays, but this stands out on the level of Blair Witch as a particularly well done example of the genre. It doesn't cheat in the way that the footage is supposedly captured and even though the film uses non-actors exclusively in the cast, there's only one scene (the final shot in the epilogue) that reads as false.
Like the movie A Teacher I mentioned above, it's nice and short at an hour and 19 minutes.
That trailer isn't the best representation of the look or feel of the film, but it's the only one that doesn't spoil some of the best scenes (don't watch any of the others if you have any chance of watching the movie). The actual film is a found footage movie following s a street level dealer/hustler named Curtis after he comes into possession of a video camera and tells one of his friends to film everything he and his crew does ("I don't care if it's a robbin', it's a rape, it's a murder, it's a killin' - we gon' film it all!").
Found footage movies are a dime a dozen nowadays, but this stands out on the level of Blair Witch as a particularly well done example of the genre. It doesn't cheat in the way that the footage is supposedly captured and even though the film uses non-actors exclusively in the cast, there's only one scene (the final shot in the epilogue) that reads as false.
Like the movie A Teacher I mentioned above, it's nice and short at an hour and 19 minutes.
legend672
Full House
Hey buts, how about a little Gleason and McQueen in Soldiers in the mist ?
Soldier in the Rain? This must be an overlooked (at least by me) gem. I'll have to stick it on my "to watch" list. I love both of them.
You should dig this legend:
legend672
Full House
My bad yes , soldier in the rain. Posting after toking again . Good stuff on the video
Saw two in the theaters this weekend.
I was late in seeing the new Bourne, but the underwhelming reviews kept me from running to the theater. I have to agreed to an extent that it was a relatively by-the-numbers installment in the franchise, but I still had fun with it. There were some cringeworthy moments mostly centering around the tech used in the film, but overall I'd still give it a pass. Certainly not worth some of the derision I've seen.
On the other hand, the other movie I said, Hell or High Water, was among the best movies I've seen all year. I was looking forward to it solely on the basis of the script since I loved the writer's last movie, Sicario, so much. I'd never heard of the British director, but I'll absolutely be checking out his more recent movie after this.
It's more or less a straightforward crime film about two brothers who need to get together a relatively modest (in heist movie terms) amount of money in a short time and go on a spree. Jeff Bridges plays a Ranger in west Texas who's hunting after them with a half Mexican half native American partner. Both the Rangers are fantastic. I was a bit afraid from the preview that Jeff Bridges' accent would be a bit too hammy, but it's literally perfect.
There are a lot of solid bit parts played by local non-actors including a waitress as a steak place that is quite opposed to anyone ordering anything other than steak. The dialogue is hilarious at my points and as tempted as I am to include a couple specific exchanges, they won't come through here as well as they should. Just go see the movie. I don't have as much time to write how much I liked it here, but it's well worth the two hours and the $10.
I was late in seeing the new Bourne, but the underwhelming reviews kept me from running to the theater. I have to agreed to an extent that it was a relatively by-the-numbers installment in the franchise, but I still had fun with it. There were some cringeworthy moments mostly centering around the tech used in the film, but overall I'd still give it a pass. Certainly not worth some of the derision I've seen.
On the other hand, the other movie I said, Hell or High Water, was among the best movies I've seen all year. I was looking forward to it solely on the basis of the script since I loved the writer's last movie, Sicario, so much. I'd never heard of the British director, but I'll absolutely be checking out his more recent movie after this.
It's more or less a straightforward crime film about two brothers who need to get together a relatively modest (in heist movie terms) amount of money in a short time and go on a spree. Jeff Bridges plays a Ranger in west Texas who's hunting after them with a half Mexican half native American partner. Both the Rangers are fantastic. I was a bit afraid from the preview that Jeff Bridges' accent would be a bit too hammy, but it's literally perfect.
There are a lot of solid bit parts played by local non-actors including a waitress as a steak place that is quite opposed to anyone ordering anything other than steak. The dialogue is hilarious at my points and as tempted as I am to include a couple specific exchanges, they won't come through here as well as they should. Just go see the movie. I don't have as much time to write how much I liked it here, but it's well worth the two hours and the $10.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
