Posts by northerncrane4

stormycyclist13 said:The Deep Blue Sea is actually a deep film.

Much like the novels by Richard Bach.

cosmicraven2 said:I think he is, but I'm not certain. My point was more about the pacing—the characters feel rushed into the story. It probably needed another thirty minutes of runtime, even if it slowed things down.

If they had that extra half hour, the writers would just use it to cram in twenty more characters.

cosmicraven2 said:What really threw me off was the constant stream of new characters being shoved in the face of the audience and the way they kept rewriting the rules on the fly. Take that scene where three guys from The Watch are tearing down the road in some high-strung sedan, only to have some random guy standing in the middle of the street flip their car 360 degrees for absolutely no reason—and then, later, I find out on an IMDb forum that he’s supposed to be a major player in the upcoming Day Watch.

Wait—wasn't that the same guy who pulls the sword out of a spine?

quietdriver3 said:I always figured you were Arsen Oremović 😕

Give me a break—it seems everyone here thinks they have my identity all figured out.

Jose Miller17 said:Alright, which one of you is Jurica Pavičić?

WE ARE ALL JURICA PAVIČIĆ!

casualotter21 said:Pretty bad, huh? 😬

Well—the aspect ratio is off. And honestly? It’s not even visually impressive to begin with.

Man, what an absolute mess of a movie. 😢

Personally, I still find "The Third Test Match" to be my absolute favorite.

Arthur Anderson49 said:On paper, I wouldn't give this movie a dime.

Gloria costs $4.00, and that includes the novel.

Jose Miller17 said:I’m saying it’s an okay movie—it just lacks conviction. And why does Gilliam lack it? Was he just being a bit scatterbrained back then? What happened?

Word on the street is he told the American press all sorts of things about the producers meddling with the final cut.

The Dude said:Given the incredibly tight timeframe allowed for character development—not the plot, mind you—there wasn't much room to move beyond certain tropes. You have to lean on stereotypes sometimes; they’re the fastest way to signal exactly who a character is.

I’m talking about the protagonists—there are only two, really—and they stay stuck in their stereotypes for the entire film. She’s just the earnest revolutionary, he’s the guilt-ridden husband, and that's basically it.

The Dude said:The screenwriter for The Constant Gardener really missed the mark here—too much focus on overcomplicating the plot. If they’d just dialed back the twists and allowed more breathing room between them—giving more screen time to the leads and their chemistry—the movie would have actually worked.

Amy Mendoza25—it felt like the whole movie just dragged. Nothing really happens for way too long, and then in the final quarter, it tries to do everything at once—trying to knot and untie itself through a series of forced dialogues.

The Dude said:There isn't a single film out there today—unless you count amateur hour or some pretentious dogma—where every frame hasn't been meticulously color-graded at least a little bit.

Is there really not a single frame here that hasn't been hit with extreme color grading—not even a hint of subtle retouching?

The Dude said:You claimed it took time for this specific film to start getting under your skin—but honestly, it gets to you from the very first frame. It’s incredibly consistent. In my view, there is no middle ground here—it either maintains that consistency throughout, or it shouldn't exist at all.

It’s all well and good for a moment—but the gimmick wears thin fast, even if they keep riding it. Of course, he couldn't just drop the stylized aesthetic overnight—but then again, maybe he shouldn't have leaned into it in the first place. To begin with—Honestly—if that’s really the best he could come up with—he didn't exactly hit a home run. Not by a long shot.

The Dude said:It could be something else entirely—like that messy plotline that gets in the way of the characters—and once that initial wave of frustration hits, everything else about the film starts looking different through a new lens.

Exactly what I'm saying—if something else had caught my eye, I wouldn't have even noticed this.

slyrider16 said:I haven't read the book—so I can't speak to the novel itself or how John le Carré writes in general. But adaptations? They can go any which way. My issue wasn't even the attempt to build a bridge between the audience and the characters—it's just that the attempt never actually landed.

Exactly. And that’s because his approach to the protagonists is nothing more than pure stereotype.

slyrider16 said:If you mean the visual contrast—that cold, sterile white New York City versus the vibrant colors of Africa—it works fine. I didn't notice much else regarding color desaturation. It's very "in your face," sure, but it serves a purpose. If anything, one could argue it could have been handled with a bit more subtlety.

There isn't a single shot in this movie that hasn't been color-graded. I don't mind the contrast between New York City and Africa, but it started feeling redundant—almost heavy-handed. That’s just my take, based on the film as a whole.

John le Carré is cynical toward all authority figures, and this film trips up by trying too hard—artificially, I should say—to force an emotional connection with the protagonists. It also gets swallowed by its own plot; those dialogue-heavy explanations near the end feel increasingly forced. Personally, the activist undertones and the sentimentality rubbed me the wrong way—plus, after a while, that stylized color desaturation at certain locations really started to grate. It’s not a total disaster, but it definitely could have been better.

I didn't expect much from this Russian film—and once again, aside from that opening sequence near downtown Chicago, it wasn't great. It was overstuffed and confusing, which eventually just devolved into pure boredom. Then again, as we all know, I’m a bit thick-headed—just a dull guy who lacks any real spark—which makes getting out to the theater a struggle, though I manage somehow.

Jose Chase2 said:How was it for you? It’s rare that a movie manages to leave me feeling this disgusted!

I barely remember it—honestly. I only sat through it because I'm a die-hard Vonnegut fan, and let me tell you, it was a massive disappointment. They missed the mark on every single level possible. It didn't trigger disgust for me like it did for you, but I can certainly say I was pissed off.

Jose Chase2 said:Breakfast of Champions🙂 🙂

That’s what happens when you try to adapt Vonnegut without actually understanding him.—just a fundamental lack of insight.

kozz said:The way you write is doing more damage than actually what you're saying.

So, what—is style more important than substance? 🙂

kozz said:*I don't mean you personally—it's more of a theoretical point. 😬

But of course! 😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:You don't need to make a movie—just back up whoever is saying what you already believe.

😎

Which is exactly what I did by bringing up Herzog. Though, I’d hope I’m allowed to disagree when someone is wrong—unless that automatically makes me a troll? 😉

Richard Hernandez13 said:Look, I wasn't trying to "put you down."

Believe me—that wasn't my intention.

It sounded like "go make your own movie, then get back to me." Fine—you say that wasn't the intent.

But that's still how it came across.

😎

Hm.
Moderators—would you mind doing me a favor and checking the admin logs to see how many different handles one person can actually use on this Reddit?
Sometimes I feel like I’m watching "Identity."