I’m the same way, especially with those movies that—despite being absolute masterpieces—leave you with such a gut-wrenching impression that you can only bring yourself to watch them once. Think along the lines of Lilya 4-ever, 12 Years a Slave, or Irreversible.
MBTS has this specific vein of humor running through it that makes the whole experience feel... I don't know, more manageable? Even though the subject matter is heavy, the movie itself doesn't weigh on me quite as much, so I’ve actually revisited it a few times just for the sheer enjoyment of it. Then there are those other films that are so deeply cathartic that you actually walk away feeling a little lighter afterward, like The Elephant Man or Lion.
I’d probably label that second group of films the OP was talking about as "demanding," if I had to...
nimblemarlin6 said:When you get into the whole Catholicism thing, people usually point to the Narnia books being Catholic. I wouldn't know for sure though, I haven't really dug into the theology side of it...
If you're looking to get ready for this movie, you should probably go back and rewatch Shadowlands—you know, the one where Hopkins plays C. S. Lewis. I always just remembered it as this really beautiful romance... But I just looked up the Shadowlands cast, and I don't see any mention of J. R. R. Tolkien, even though they were close friends and ran in the exact same circles...
stormyridge2 says: It’s clearly some kind of "white feminism" thing... you know, where the whole point is just to push back against those all-female lineups that were basically just racist in their own special way. If the casting isn't strictly white, male, and hetero, then suddenly the fans start boycotting everything again, and I guess Sony
will have to walk on eggshells now...
You’re totally out of the loop here... "white feminism" is pretty much persona non grata these days...
I honestly think Gosling could really nail this, mostly because he’s got that knack for subtlety and those tiny little nuances, provided the director actually asks him to lean into that... personally, I was sold on him as an actor way back when he was doing those smaller, more intimate roles in things like Blue Valentine, Half Nelson, and The Place Beyond The Pines. To be honest, what he did in Blade Runner was probably my favorite bit of his work... but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the director and whatever specific story Chazelle is trying to pull off with this one. The trailer looks decent enough, but after seeing movies like The Right Stuff and Apollo 13, you really feel like they need to find some fresh angle or something...
John Vaughn4 said:The whole reason I get sucked into Disney animated movies is because they actually make me feel things... a lot of things. Unfortunately, this one just didn't hit that spot for me. After a string of absolute bangers lately—you know, stuff like >, >, and >—this felt pretty underwhelming. The humor felt a bit forced, though I guess that’s just a matter of taste, isn't it? I have to give them credit for the plot, which is really the only thing that kept it afloat, but overall, I was just kind of numb to it all... It's a decent enough flick, but Disney has definitely proven they can aim higher than this.
Just a little correction here, > is actually a Pixar movie (it was directed by >, who also did >). I realize they're part of the Disney family now, but as an animation studio, they still have their own distinct look and vibe. If I had to pick, I'd say Pixar films always feel just a tiny bit more intellectual to me, whereas Disney tends to lean harder into the sentimentality...
Honestly, considering one of his best performances was playing Arnie Grape when he wasn't even twenty yet—back when he actually landed an Academy Awards nomination—I have to disagree. He felt so much more genuine and likable, just a solid young actor in those early roles leading up to Titanic, before he started getting all moody and stuck in those pretentious, "serious" and "grown-up" parts later on...
This actually looks pretty charming. Driver seems like he’s got a lot of charisma, and Price definitely seems to be in a great mood. I’m really hoping this turns out better than The Brothers Grimm... man, that one was such a chore to sit through. Though, judging by the trailer, they seem to share a pretty similar vibe...
So, they actually put together a translation of Jack (you know, that whole "You won't set foot in Boston while we're still breathing..." vibe ) and had it blasting through the streets during those first few months of the siege...
So, do you actually have a primary care doctor? Like, someone who handles all your referrals? I really feel like there should be one person looking at the big picture of your health instead of just bouncing around from specialist to specialist like a pinball... If I were in your shoes, I’d be sticking with my family doctor—I've been seeing mine for fifteen years now—and I'd be pushing them to keep digging into the diagnostics. You eventually build this kind of shorthand, this actual relationship, after being with someone for that long. If you're still young, just take my advice for the future: having a reliable GP is everything, and honestly, as you get older, you eventually learn how to actually stand your ground and be assertive with them when you need to be.
silentridge3 said:If not one single person out of a thousand internet commenters reviewing Dunkirk—and I mean even the high-brow critics who think they’re so enlightened—has bothered to mention the blatant ideology or the sheer, unadulterated pathos baked into the film, then fine, I guess I’ll just go into it totally blind and see what kind of emotional ambush is waiting for me... It’s actually more frustrating when you consider the total omertà surrounding the feminist lens being shoved into almost every modern movie these days. There’s this complete silence about it, which means I can never truly know if I’m going to sit there getting increasingly irritated by unrealistic portrayals or forced agendas... And don't even get me started on the absolute chaos over on IMDb, where you'll see one guy giving it a perfect 10 while someone else is dragging it with a 1. Does that kind of Gaussian distribution even make sense? Is Wikipedia just an amateurized half-advertisement at this point? What I'm trying to say is that "doing your research" by digging through a thousand different sources to find the actual layers and substance of a film feels like a massive waste of time that doesn't even yield much value... Honestly, I’d much rather just have some short, official guidelines and be done with it...
Like I was saying before... there’s actually a way to get a quick rundown of what a movie is all about without having to waste half your afternoon digging through reviews or watching endless trailers... When it comes to the underlying ideology of the film, you’re definitely right that the mainstream critics don't really bother digging that deep, but it's not like there aren't people out there who actually care... and since it clearly matters to you, I figured I'd mention that there are plenty of commentators who offer a much more thorough and intellectually honest perspective for those interested. For instance, the World Socialist Web Site puts out these incredibly detailed film critiques that I always find pretty fascinating to dive into, even if I don't necessarily agree with every single point they make... anyway, here you go... Take a look at how they tore apart Dunkirk... honestly, their take on that movie was something else...Unlike you, I actually find plenty of blogs dedicated specifically to feminist or queer criticism, which can be pretty interesting if that's your thing... Since you aren't exactly a feminist—and I'm guessing you aren't much of a socialist either, though you might want to give the World Socialist Web Site a look sometime—this stuff probably isn't your cup of tea. But my point is, you could probably track down a critic or a specific site that actually aligns with your own political or ideological leanings. You know, someone whose takes you can actually respect, even if you take them with a grain of salt, so you can just stick to their recommendations and call it a day. It doesn't even have to be a perfect match; you just need someone who, like you, has zero patience for the "unrealistic bullshit" they shove into movies these days. Honestly, it would save you a lot of aggravation, because life is way too short to get worked up over something that's supposed to be entertainment... This particular forum isn't exactly the best fit for you anyway, since it’s mostly full of teenagers and people who don't really think things through, which explains why the "most commented" movie lists end up being so frustrating for someone like you...
silentridge3 said:Susan Taylor72, is that you... the one who couldn't quite spot the ideology and the heavy-handed pathos worthy of an old American propaganda epic in Dunkirk? I actually caught it, mostly because I've grown up a bit... My issue is that none of you, or even the mainstream media critics, bothered to mention it. So, what am I supposed to do now? Should I watch every single movie first, write my own little critique, and then decide if it's worth watching based on my own notes?
Do you feel some kind of personal burden for spreading a false image, for failing to tell the readers of this forum that the movie is ideological and overly sentimental?
ha, wow, look, everyone has their own reasons for wasting time on a forum... I wrote my review in a few minutes right after finishing the film and gave it a pretty moderate rating. Generally speaking, I don't use this place to dive into deep philosophical debates or try to enlighten the masses, which doesn't mean I don't recognize ideology in real life or in cultural productions... It’s just that it’s my choice how much time I want to spend writing about it here, and you really shouldn't come for me over it. I love movies and I enjoy them, even when they're completely compromised by ideology... Look, we have other people like you who shift the focus to those things, and honestly, I'm fine with that, I actually like reading it. I don't feel any personal responsibility for spreading a false narrative, because a ten-line review isn't a doctoral dissertation... the forum is open to everyone and dozens of posts deal with that specific aspect, so I personally don't have a strong motive to jump in... I highlighted the acting because I generally appreciate that side of visual arts and it hadn't been mentioned yet, which doesn't mean I think that's the beginning and end of the film itself. And I did touch on patriotism and ideology, so I don't think I "failed to provide information" (just go back and read my comment about the Frenchman)
okay, now let's move away from me and this useless ad hominem argument, because what were you actually trying to say? Are you still pushing for the label "realistic film," because otherwise, a viewer would supposedly have to read 200 reviews, most of which are just impressionistic snippets like my ten lines? Is my idea of using Wikipedia as a consolidated source of info bad because... because it's mine? You can do better than that.
Honestly, why bother scrolling through endless lists when you can just hit up Wikipedia and call it a day? I mean, what’s the point of obsessing over twenty or even two thousand different reviews... it's just overkill. You go there, grab the summary, and boom—you've got everything that actually matters: the genre, if it's based on a book, the director, the cast, all of it. You skip the plot obviously, because let's face it, you aren't reading a synopsis just to avoid spoilers, you're looking for a vibe. If you're actually trying to be smart about it and don't want to walk blindly into a movie you'll hate, you just linger for a second on the Critical response section... that’s where the real juice is, since they usually pull out the most striking bits of feedback anyway. Besides, once you reach adulthood, you develop this internal compass for what you'll actually enjoy... no amount of internet hype or random predictions can really override that gut feeling... Oh, please... as if we aren't all supposed to just play along, acting a little bit ridiculous and endlessly mourning the absolute state of the world these days...
Movies are an art form. Acting is an art (yeah, even when they’re wearing heavy prosthetics), sound design is an art, and film scores are an art... The idea that realism should be the ultimate benchmark for art basically died out sometime in the 1870s. Honestly, I think you're being way too stuck in the past and just dwelling on things unnecessarily... My advice? Go watch more "art house" or prestige indie films—which, if I recall, is what a good chunk of the people on this forum actually recommend. You aren't going to change someone else's standards by arguing with them on a message board; you can only really work on expanding your own perspective.
She was absolutely incredible in The Impossible, she really carries the whole movie on her shoulders... I totally get what you mean about how having such a perfect, delicate little face doesn't actually help her much; I mean, I didn't even truly "get" her until she completely won me over with that role. She was just as brilliant in Mulholland Drive, The Painted Veil, and Funny Games too...
Looks like I missed a few days here, but I still wanted to drop in and wish a happy birthday to Stephen Dillane. He was solid as Stannis the Man in Welcome to Ottawa and played Leonard Woolf well enough in The Hours, but honestly, he completely stole the show for me playing Thomas Jefferson in that John Adams series... He just absolutely nails that role, so if you haven't seen it, you really should check out that series—it’s still available on HBO if you're looking for something to binge...
The Cat, starring Jean Gabin—honestly, such a great little flick. It’s basically just this old couple who can't stand each other anymore; he’s obsessed with his cat, and she absolutely loathes the thing because of it... Just a really solid little movie, and watching the two of them go at it is pure entertainment.
I actually have an autograph from William Shatner sitting right here at my place, yeah, I ran into him at the airport back in the day... 🙂 Denny Crane 👍
Gary Oldman—honestly, there's no point in even trying to find the right words, he’s just a genius... My absolute favorites have to be TTSS, Your Ears, playing Sirius Black in HP, JFK, and Immortal Beloved. In The Contender, you wouldn't even recognize him, it's just phenomenal. I guess Dracula was the one that didn't quite hit the mark for me, though...
It’s kind of funny to think about how both William Hurt and Timothy Dalton ended up playing Rochester in Jane Eyre, I wonder who was responsible for that casting choice back then... 🤦 Personally, I think Toby Stephens eats them both for breakfast.
For me, Broderick is such a definitive icon of his generation—you've got WarGames, Ferris, Ladyhawke, and that really solid performance in Glory, but after that, nothing else really caught my eye...