damn, totally forgot about children of menCleanhobo wrote:Not a movie, but True Detective.
Children Of Men.
and that one section 8 undercover scene in True Detectives...
Moderator: drizzle
damn, totally forgot about children of menCleanhobo wrote:Not a movie, but True Detective.
Children Of Men.
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.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.
I agree with the acting and the visuals, but I was still bored and found myself playing with my phone an awful lot.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.
Agree completely with #bossgloss opinion of the film.Philaflava wrote:I agree with the acting and the visuals, but I was still bored and found myself playing with my phone an awful lot.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.
thekeentwo wrote:hustler we can totally have sex
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.Employee wrote:, boring pacing and more loose plot points than butt holes.
thekeentwo wrote:hustler we can totally have sex
Tommy Bunz wrote:Thanks for telling us your opinion on a movie that you didn't watch.
Excellent contribution to the discussion.
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.drizzle wrote: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.Employee wrote:, boring pacing and more loose plot points than butt holes.
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.