Posts by northerncrane4

Chris Morgan67 said:The main issue for me in that movie is how obnoxious and grating Tom and Nicole are.

Absolutely revolting.

That’s what gets to me most—honestly, she’s the worst part. She's enough to drive anyone insane. 👎

Francis Lawrence was my biggest disappointment when I moved—he actually promised he'd show up to help me haul boxes, then just never showed.

amhorvat@htnet-dsl said:Are you joking? He might have some decent ideas, but he has zero ability to direct actors—take Višnjić, for example. He’s brilliant in ER, but in Vrdoljak's films, he's just terrible. Everyone looks like a plastic mannequin under Vrdoljak's direction.

Goran Višnjić doesn't act in Vrdoljak's films—he acts in a single Vrdoljak film.
While Vrdoljak produced several masterpieces throughout his career, he's become a senile old man now; "Long, dark night" certainly isn't doing him any favors.

Olive said:👍 🤣 🙏 Just imagine how pathetic—only ever acting in her husband's movies.

Don't be like that. She even acted for W. Edwards Deming. 😎

quietdriver3 said:That bad?

The whole movie isn't a total disaster—it’s just mediocre—but the wife? She absolutely carries the thing.

wearygardener13 said:all of a sudden, those little brunette girls turned into absolute villains😕

Thanks to Severina.

Maybe Lukas Nola doesn't quite have that Guy Ritchie flair—no matter how hard he tries—but at least Barbara Nola performs like Madonna.

Alright, back to the movie. Someone mentioned that the film touches on the status of immigrants in France. I’d love some elaboration on that—since, in my infinite arrogance and ego, I somehow failed to see how the protagonist's immigrant background defines their standing.

milk said:Good grief, the ego on this one is unreal 🤣—and frankly, I don't care who you think you are. You’re just going to have to accept it as a fact, no matter how much you hate it. 🤣 🤣...

Oh, I get it now. You're worried about your moderator status—scared I'll report you to the admins? Don't worry, I'm not that much of a coward. 😘

milk said:haha look at the ego looming over the horizon... spreading its claws like a raven over some ordinary guy's fate... "look at me, look at me, look at me" as if he's crying out...😁😁 ...well, damn—you'll eventually have to accept the fact that some people just won't care who you are... but hey, take it as a compliment... I don't like you because of your fame, but because you're actually 😁😁...

So, does this mean you'll be avoiding those clever little allusions you use to drop hints? Come on, darling—you're losing my respect with these silent, vague substitutions of arguments.

milk said:did he really expose the organizers? does the word of one anonymous person—who, by the way, meets his end shortly after like a Kafkaesque dog—really matter that much?

The organizers were clearly exposed because the director made sure the key information about them landed right in the hands of the police. It didn't have to be that way. A Kafkaesque hero doesn't die because of a bag of cash.

milk said:is the money in the box about the family's survival, or is it more of a metaphor for what a single life is worth?

If he had taken it, this would have been a different story altogether.

Jose Miller17 said:regarding point 1)—I don't know and I don't care... I agree, it's a big deal :-) ...

Sure thing. You just happen to stumble into ambiguous metaphors quite often.

Jose Miller17 said:2) I get it—you might be right—but aren't you biased against the movie because of that stance? I have no idea if people are glorifying it... and this thread certainly doesn't prove that by the number of participants :-) ...

The participation level in this thread fits my theory perfectly. A theory that is likely wrong, though.

Jose Miller17 said:3) I don't want things to turn out the way I fear: talking about an individual caught in a surreal, bizarre chain of events over which he has zero control... just numbers and instructions... a sequence where meaning only exists at their sheer physical conclusion, and the greatest human virtue is merely the luck of a miserable number... the tyranny of an omnipresent present, regardless of the reckless, crude idea that some noble, righteous purpose must emerge from suffering... especially the notion that the hero can be a subject—someone who influences things—to suggest he can squeeze something out, or that someone will forget him because he's insignificant, invisible... to suggest he can step out of the grinding gears...

Some of those points simply don't add up for me. In the end, the hero actually became a subject; he exposed the game organizers and secured his people's financial stability. Certain of the hero's actions don't fit the image being pushed of him as a mere victim of circumstances with no agency whatsoever.

Jose Miller17 said:...Ah, there he goes—the wounded ego at work. It’s classic behavior—he acts like anything that doesn't align with his specific worldview can only be dismissed as divine revelation.Enlighten me... enlighten me...

First off—yeah, I know you know, and honestly, everyone who’s shown even an ounce of interest knows too. Most people who haven't? They know as well. So, I'm still here. Big deal.
Second point—it’s not about my ego being bruised. My take is simply that we’re looking at a film that uses violence to stretch out a premise that, as I noted before, relies entirely on a gimmick. I don't follow. What are you getting at? It’s okay, but it doesn't hold up for ninety minutes. My sense is that young, idealistic cinephiles are mystifying this film—they're just desperately hunting for some new hero, preferably someone obscure, just so they can feel superior to the masses by knowing their work. But maybe I'm wrong. You invited me to be enlightened by your vision, only to snap back at me like this. How is one supposed to have a conversation with you?

Jose Miller17 said:Our protagonist was never portrayed as some cunning mastermind—not clever, not strategic, and certainly not resourceful—so I honestly don't see where you're getting that point from...

I still don't see it that way. Actually, I feel the exact opposite—what our protagonist did during the competition, especially that exchange with the cop, strikes me as wise, calculated, and sharp. That’s where my point comes from.

Jose Miller17 said:"He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not..."—man, this guy was losing his mind on a Sunday afternoon......Look, you can love it all you want, but I'm telling you again—you completely missed the point of the movie...

Enlighten me then.

Jose Miller17 said:I'm not saying the story is actually about him—that's why I call it a "lesson"—it isn't meant for him specifically... our main protagonist is Mr. Bilotko. In that sense, calling it "autistic" fits perfectly enough.

Look, I prefer having an actual protagonist. And by "lesson," I mean that final act in the movie that gives you that feeling of: "Oh, you thought you were so smart? Well, how do you like that."

That should have been way more fun. That kickboxer, for instance—completely wasted potential there.

Jose Miller17 said:Well, Xavi pointed out perfectly well that a "twist" doesn't necessarily mean a "fantastic plot twist"... and honestly, I disagree—mostly because I happened to know what was coming, yet I still found myself gripped by the tension. The pacing works for me; the shots are well-timed and that middle sequence is spot on. Whether the ending is "banal" is purely subjective—you could ask if the end of Kafka's *The Trial* is banal, or if it serves as the ultimate commentary on the story itself.
edit: Oh, and apparently his brother was the absolute last choice for the lead role—was supposedly picked at the very last second before filming started...

Risking a deletion for being contrarian, I’ll say this:
Just because a fantastic revelation happens in the middle of the movie rather than at the end doesn't mean it isn't a fantastic plot twist—it's just positioned differently.
I went in blind, and for me, the pace felt sluggish. While the buildup and the competition were engaging, the epilogue felt slow and unnecessary.
When I call it "banal," I'm referring to that forced need to "teach the protagonist a lesson"—which isn't even what this story is about. I've never had much patience for protagonists who move through a film with such an autistic detachment.

Larry Martin11 said:the simple fact remains—that "twist" doesn't actually turn into the "fantastic payoff" the whole movie was built on

The issue is that the "big twist" happens halfway through—it’s actually decent for about twenty minutes—but then the movie just drags on and on until the final resolution feels completely banal.

redorca11 said:Relying on DiCaprio to carry the plot like a drunk—I don't think it works... "The Aviator" was just nauseatingly overacted for me; I was still feeling the trauma ten days after leaving the theater.

He did the bear a favor—both him and that little brat Diaz—by pairing them against a beast like Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York." It makes it perfectly clear who the pro is and who is just playing pretend.

Larry Martin11 said:...all jokes aside, it’s a great movie—one I really hope hits theaters or at least gets a wide release on streaming so we can all experience it again together 🙂 It feels totally original, yet sooooo very retro; just really good 👍

It moves sooooo very slowly. I just can't stand those movies where the entire plot exists solely to serve one single gimmick.

Kevin Sanders87 said:If Scorsese—who’s spent years leaning on De Niro without missing once—sees something special in DiCaprio, I’ll take his word for it.

He sees exactly what Sedlar saw in Božić Alić—nothing but a total fraud.