Posts by Anthony Kim18

About that post...

It’s been a massive hit for as long as I can remember.
I mean, didn't it hold that number one spot at the box office for a while?

hmm...

So, that's just how I read it.
Like, sure, there might be a bunch of different Malkovichs, but they're all really just the same one Malkovich, right?

Mark Johnson5 said:Or maybe you just don't have any taste.☕

Well, maybe most people just don't have any taste!

Jerry Martin19 said:He went into her. 😬

p.s. Not trying to make this a gay thing. Just if that's how you want to read it...

But what about dressing like a woman?
The makeup?
The powder?
The wigs?!

Jerry Martin19 said:He went into her. 😬

p.s. Not trying to make this a gay thing. Just if that's how you want to read it...

But what about dressing like a woman?
The makeup?
Powder?
Wigs?

Jerry Martin19 said:He went into her. 😬

p.s. Not trying to make this a gay thing. Just if that's how you want to read it...

😂🤣👍

Peter Morris58 said:Well, I actually met John Malkovich! ha! So where are you guys 😁

Did you happen to get inside it too? 😬

By the way, does anyone else feel like some of Malkovich's performances are just a little bit... I don't know, kinda gay?

Enemy at the Gates is honestly pretty bad.
It just feels fake.
Way too many clichés.
Doesn't really go deep or make you think.
Too much unnecessary romance.
Focuses on looking good instead of the psychology.
The sets look way too polished for a war movie.
It isn't even truly anti-war.
The main guy is just too idealized.
They had to make him a Jew just to make him the hero!

Thanks.
I mean, people usually just comment on whatever movies are on the list anyway, regardless of what's actually playing right now.
That’s how I played it...

Seriously, this isn't spam!

Back then, we were right in the middle of the Mexico crisis.
Just a total media war between the US and America!

ruggedhawk80 said:It’s a killer movie. I mean, how could it not be when you've got Depp in the lead?...
Plus, he's sipping absinthe and tripping on opium.
The movie is just awesome.

Honestly, watching him pass out from the absinthe might be the best part of the whole thing.
I'm just not that into Depp myself.
Being a guy, I get it.

Eh, it was just okay for me!

Anonymous said:Superficial might be the best word for this one... Visually, the director killed it... especially that opening scene... that stylized shot of a broken Frida Kahlo after the bus accident... just lying there lifeless in all that blood and gold dust... plus that King Kong recreation Diego.
The way they show Frida and Diego’s trip to New York City looks like a Dadaist collage, almost like they're little paper dolls...

The script itself is pretty shallow though... E. Norton wrote it... she should've stuck to acting...
The movie just parades around famous historical figures (Leon Trotsky, André Breton, Nelson Rockefeller, Tina Modotti, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Pablo Picasso... but they're all just quick name-drops)... some characters really deserved more screen time given the context... like how they show the assassination attempt on Trotsky and how Frida was briefly accused because of it... but Siqueiros (Antonio Banderas), who probably helped organize the hit, barely shows up at a party at the start... same goes for Tina Modotti, the legendary painter and communist icon (total champagne socialist 😁)... she got kicked out of Mexico over those murder allegations involving the former Mexican president... but then ten years later she's back hanging out with Frida and Diego again...

There's zero indication of how Frida actually transformed into an artist... she just becomes a fully realized artist overnight... 🙄

:

Fair enough, I don't know enough about her life to really weigh in
You do?

Ryan Wilson2 said:Just finished watching this to get my thoughts down.

I don't know much about Frida, but man, this movie was a total snooze—just a massive soap opera. Only two scenes actually grabbed me: those skeletons in the hospital and that part in the bar where the old lady starts singing at the table.

Watching it, I caught glimpses of her paintings, which honestly just drove home how shallow and boring the film felt. Someone who creates art like that definitely has a dark, complex, and messy inner world that this movie completely failed to tap into.

Based on this flick, Frida just looks like some insecure housewife having an occasional meltdown.

Nah, you can't really jump to that conclusion from the movie.
Her actual backstory, which the film does show, is what caused all that confusion and instability.
Only she knows what was really going on in her head. You can catch bits of it through her art.
If the movie focused too much on her internal angst, it wouldn't even be a biopic anymore, right?

Decent flick.
Standard biopic fare.
Honestly? Her actual life was way more gripping than the movie itself.
The film stays descriptive without being pushy, which I dig. That’s how biopics should be, right?
I mean, she was easily one of the most fascinating people of the last century...

The movie’s kind of a drag. Especially the first half.
I definitely expected more from this one.
Way too much talking, not enough doing.
There’s basically zero plot until the very end, and even then, it’s just your typical Hollywood showdown.
The characters feel pretty shallow, too. Aside from some cool costumes and masks, there isn't much depth there.
It takes some light jabs at American history and the whole political system, too.
Honestly? It feels pretty watered down and lacks any real substance.
It pokes fun at the Church as well.

Pretty cool flick.
Decent watch, honestly.
The plot? It’s nothing special. It isn't serious, it isn't funny, it isn't a horror, and it definitely isn't psychological.
But it's still an engaging, solid movie. There's no real depth here—it feels like the directors were just playing around a bit.
The staging is a little different, too. A bit of a weird one.
Worth a look if you have the time.
Just don't expect a masterpiece.