Philaflava.com ::

Cleanhobo wrote:Not a movie, but True Detective.

Children Of Men.

damn, totally forgot about children of men

and that one section 8 undercover scene in True Detectives...

I felt like this was the first movie I saw in theater in a long time that I could call "great film" without any reservations. Have seen lots of very goods, but I thought this was a great movie.

Really fantastic movie. Not much more to say about it that hasn't already been said.
And , strangely, i'm curious to hear what emp says about it , if he ever sees it , cause it would be funny if he ended up going out like that theater critic woman in the bar.

this long shot is extra cray tho. the setting is just ridiccccc

a ferris wheel on the horizon? cmon now bruh. okay I get it, you can direct a tragic foreign war sequence. I BELIEVE YOU



also: will go see Birdman

cuz I loved Batman and I don't mind Michael Keaton as an actor, even though he was not a villain of the Clarence Boddiker caliber in the new Robocop, and for that sin, I was VERY at him but he was the original Bruce Wayne and his Bruce Wayne is a hundred times better than Christian Bale's stale take on Gotham's finest so :kanyeshrug:

this looks pretty interesting. and I have a love/hate/LOVE thing for Emma Stone. Her mouth looks funny like a Muppet but those big, dreamy eyes can emote so much feeeeeeling

Really liked this movie

liked this movie a lot. great film.
Ed Norton stole the first half of the movie.
Keaton kicked ass in the second half but I'll still take Jake G in Nightcrawler over his performance.

Great movie and direction although I thought the Emma Stone character was too cliche. Like I'm hearing Best Supporting Actress hype? Come onnnnnn.

I especially like seeing people who've fallen off make a comeback and show their chops like Keaton did.

the speech she gives Keaton in the beginning is causing all the hype.

Emma stone was nothing worthwhile. Especially compared to Keaton and Norton. They killed shit

Saw this recently. Very well crafted film, but didn't care much for the story at all. Keaton was born to play this role and he murdered it. Norton was brilliant and Galifinakis and Watts were really solid as well. I don't care for Stone in general, but she was palatable here despite being completely blown off the screen by the rest of the cast. This is going to win some awards and it certainly deserves to. I'll likely never watch this again though.

7 outta 10.

Norton and Keaton were great but the film was completely uninteresting. I had to watch this in 3 parts just to finish. Weak story like Jam said.

Hmmm…I feel like the film making alone carried the movie , where the story might have apparently left something to be desired (I had zero problem with the story line, btw). It's just so well done. It looked amazing and the performances were incredible.
I found the entire thing to be completely riveting on all levels. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

Philaflava wrote:Norton and Keaton were great but the film was completely uninteresting. I had to watch this in 3 parts just to finish. Weak story like Jam said.

Eh, Norton (who I usually get Man Tingles for) wasn't on point like he usually is (think The Hulk for his performance in Birdman). Keaton steals the screen the duration of the film; as noted above: dreadful, boring pacing and more loose plot points than butt holes.

File this under: "Should Have Went Strait To Netflix, Brah."

Blockhead wrote:Hmmm…I feel like the film making alone carried the movie , where the story might have apparently left something to be desired (I had zero problem with the story line, btw). It's just so well done. It looked amazing and the performances were incredible.
I found the entire thing to be completely riveting on all levels. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

I agree with the acting and the visuals, but I was still bored and found myself playing with my phone an awful lot.

Even though it's a non-action flick, I really felt like this one had to be seen in the theater for the full experience.

Philaflava wrote:

Blockhead wrote:Hmmm…I feel like the film making alone carried the movie , where the story might have apparently left something to be desired (I had zero problem with the story line, btw). It's just so well done. It looked amazing and the performances were incredible.
I found the entire thing to be completely riveting on all levels. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

I agree with the acting and the visuals, but I was still bored and found myself playing with my phone an awful lot.

Agree completely with #bossgloss opinion of the film.

Employee wrote:, boring pacing and more loose plot points than butt holes.

I enjoyed the movie but Emp is right. It's kind of a shame all this great acting and interesting cinematography couldn't be paired with a better script.

It tries too hard to be an Altman-ish 'look behind the curtain through the eyes of the ensemble cast' thing in the first half, and literally leaves every single subplot started there unresolved. The satire of Hollywood and Broadway is very uneven too, the premise/casting alone are great and already inherently satirical so all the obvious pokes like the pig sperm thing just come off as sophomoric and forced by comparison. There seems to be some kind of ideological theme about pure art running through the whole thing, or at least an attempt to make some point about it, but it's both naive and cynical at once, and it overall ends up underbaked and kinda confused. The second half, where the focus is mostly on Keaton, is where the movie really comes together and takes off (no pun) because that's what we are actually here to see. But at that point the damage is already done and the success feels limited, you walk away feeling like this could've been better if it was tighter and more focused on the main premise.

It's ironic and funny that the 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' quote is prominently inserted into one scene because this entire movie is a lot of shit happening but it doesn't particularly have any point.

i thought this was pretty boring, in all honesty. In fairness, I did sleep through the first hour, and I saw it for free, but that couldn't save it.

I knew it was a 'good film' but I really couldn't be bothered with it. Maybe if the seats at the cinema were more comfortable

Thanks for telling us your opinion on a movie that you didn't watch.
Excellent contribution to the discussion.

I'll illegally download it and delete it before viewing and think of you tommy bunz

the best part was the imaginary action sequence with the explosions and that giant robot bird.

Tommy Bunz wrote:Thanks for telling us your opinion on a movie that you didn't watch.
Excellent contribution to the discussion.

Hahahhaha

drizzle wrote:

Employee wrote:, boring pacing and more loose plot points than butt holes.

I enjoyed the movie but Emp is right. It's kind of a shame all this great acting and interesting cinematography couldn't be paired with a better script.

It tries too hard to be an Altman-ish 'look behind the curtain through the eyes of the ensemble cast' thing in the first half, and literally leaves every single subplot started there unresolved. The satire of Hollywood and Broadway is very uneven too, the premise/casting alone are great and already inherently satirical so all the obvious pokes like the pig sperm thing just come off as sophomoric and forced by comparison. There seems to be some kind of ideological theme about pure art running through the whole thing, or at least an attempt to make some point about it, but it's both naive and cynical at once, and it overall ends up underbaked and kinda confused. The second half, where the focus is mostly on Keaton, is where the movie really comes together and takes off (no pun) because that's what we are actually here to see. But at that point the damage is already done and the success feels limited, you walk away feeling like this could've been better if it was tighter and more focused on the main premise.

It's ironic and funny that the 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' quote is prominently inserted into one scene because this entire movie is a lot of shit happening but it doesn't particularly have any point.

My main problem with the pace is that we see them re-act the same couple scenes like 3 or 4 times. I realize part of that is to show the difference between acting and over-acting, and how things that are going on behind the curtain effect the performances, but rewatching them do the same lines, over and over hinders the overall movie experience.

Sucks people's complaints about this are so focused on the pace/lack of a pure, concise, linear plot. I felt like those attributes were the most significant. Some films aren't meant to tell a story, they're meant to evoke emotion. If you didn't feel really fucking uncomfortable and lightweight stressed out and then sort of confused and then oddly relieved throughout the course of that movie, I think you missed the point, and a really enjoyable experience imo. Keaton got jerked, too. Theory of Everything was two steps above a fucking Lifetime "made for tv" movie and doot spent half the movie just looking around at shit and sitting in a chair