Mark Gray3 said:It probably isn't the absolute worst thing ever made, but man, it's weak. Honestly, the movie just feels empty. It’s totally inconsequential. It actually makes me wonder what the writer was even trying to pull off here. I mean, sure, there are a few details and concepts that work fine on their own—mostly stuff involving George Clooney's character, his backstory, and how those emotions bubble up now—but in the grand scheme of things, it’s pretty irrelevant. The movie ends up feeling way less than the sum of its parts.
Maybe Netflix really needs to start filtering their productions a bit more instead of just throwing money at projects and greenlighting everything just because some big name wants to make a movie. Then again, you can tell from this one that the production felt cheap; they clearly cut corners on everything from the locations to the sets...
This. It’s not the worst film out there—my colleagues are definitely exaggerating how bad it is—but it’s seriously sub-par and boring. At the end of the day, it's totally unnecessary. I bet the book actually makes sense. But yeah, skip it.
It’s not bad, but honestly? It’s nowhere near the best stuff Fincher has ever done. It feels like they found the "interesting" parts only after the script was already locked in—which, by then, you're basically at the finish line. That whole conflict with Welles felt way too rushed to me, too—like it was squeezed into just one scene when there was clearly enough meat there for much more. I get the vibe that Fincher basically made this for himself and his late father, and if anyone else happens to enjoy it along the way, cool. Technically, it’s impressive—as expected—but the pacing is all over the place. It’s just one moment where it grabs you and then loses you, over and over again, for two plus hours. Still, I thought it was alright. No regrets watching it.
Give me a movie recommendation that isn't full of clichés—honestly, so many movies have been made since the dawn of cinema that there aren't any tropes left. This specific genre just comes with certain clichés built right in.
Define "banal blaxploitation" versus the non-banal stuff for me... If you were expecting something totally different from what this movie actually is, well, that’s on you.
It’s solid and it’s shot well. Like, really great.
What does social class even have to do with it? You're being a bit judgmental here. And I have no idea what you mean by Black Karen, so maybe explain that?
Man, you took my comparison way too literally. The biggest flaw with the movie is definitely the lack of subtlety, but the things you're nitpicking feel like trivial nonsense because it seems like you just hated the movie before you even saw it. Total closed mind.
As for the twist, it actually works within the logic of the film—all those clichés serve a purpose. Plus, the lead actress is incredible. If you think she lacks characterization, that’s probably just because you're hyper-focusing on one ten-minute dinner scene. That's your issue, not hers.
(I've been on this forum for almost 10 years and I still don't know how to quote someone, dammit)
The movie kicks off with a William Faulkner quote: "The past is never dead, it's not even past." And honestly—that’s exactly how the plot works—it's all non-linear, which is basically what makes the whole twist work. It is just absolutely stuffed with liberal clichés designed to suck up to the white and Black elites—seriously, the biggest cringe moment is that fancy feminist scene in the restaurant. Like, sure, the feminism might be Black-led, but ideologically it’s just straight-up liberal; we’re all supposed to march right alongside her just because she didn't get a prime table at some high-end bistro, or because the poor girl had to wait two seconds at the front desk of a swanky hotel. Where are the rich gays in this liberal narrative? Well, they’re the directors, I guess—the whole movie feels like it was cooked up in an Excel spreadsheet by someone with a PhD in gender and race studies 🙄
Are you maybe white? 😁
It’s actually pretty clever how the synopsis hides the twist—it's a total red herring—and structurally, the way the twist is executed is the only way it could have actually functioned as a surprise.
Most people trashed this one, and most reviews look just like the one above, but if you keep a slightly more open mind and actually try to understand it, it's a pretty solid film.
As for that restaurant thing—she got a tiny table for three people, plus the other Black woman is heavy-set, and honestly, I’d be complaining too, whether I were rich or broke At the front desk, you can totally see the receptionist rolling her eyes—kind of like how you'd roll your eyes if some guy from a rough neighborhood stood there thinking he was entitled to special treatment, even when he might actually be
Every single time I sit down to watch one of his movies, I find myself just waiting—literally waiting—to see when and how he’s going to drop that signature split-screen shot. It’s always such a trip seeing how he pulls it off.
Honestly, I think Scarface is super overrated—it’s one of those movies that feels cool when you’re fifteen and all you want to do is post that "eyes never lie" quote on your profile.
But man, that final scene in Blow Out? That last shot is easily one of the greatest moments in cinema history. At least if you ask me. It’s a good scream
So, I finally sat down and watched Bonfire recently—you know, the one everyone drags through the mud and calls a total disaster? Honestly, people blame the book, and sure, maybe that’s part of it, but I have to say, I actually really vibed with it. It wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered it being from my first viewing. There are some seriously striking scenes in there that just stick with you! Even when he's working with a subpar script, De Palma always finds a way to turn it into something visually arresting just by using his signature style and those killer camera movements. He at least always puts in the work to make it look cool, even if the story isn't hitting all the right notes.
Man, if we're talking De Palma, I’ve gotta say *Carlito's Way* and *Blow Out* are easily at the top of my list—they just hit different. And honestly? I have such a soft spot for *Phantom of the Paradise*. It doesn't get brought up nearly enough in conversation, but it's such a gem!
The only way I’m ever scrolling through my phone while watching something is if I'm stuck watching some absolute garbage on Netflix—though honestly, it'd probably be smarter to just turn it off. But then I can't even properly trash it because I haven't finished it yet, you know? And besides, some of these movies don't even require actual attention since you can tell they're going to be total trash within the first five minutes... like that last American Idol movie, for example.
I never watch movies on my phone—the screen is just way too tiny for me. I have used my tablet a few times during trips, though, since the screen is actually a decent size.
Man, what an absolute classic! I can still vividly picture this movie even though it’s been ages since I last sat down to watch it.
It was actually Danny Trejo's first film—and get this—Akira Kurosawa was originally supposed to direct it with Henry Fonda and Peter Falk leading the cast!
Richard Wilson4 said:To be honest, I never even gave that one a second look, let alone a third, unlike the rest of the series—it just didn't blow me away.
Maybe he should give it another shot; honestly, that might be the fairest way to judge it.
PS Has anyone actually sat down and watched their old show Spaced?
I thought it was seriously good.
Spaced is awesome, but man, I watched that like 10 years ago.
The World's End felt a bit weaker than the other two on my first watch too, but looking back, I’ve started to appreciate it way more—that moment near the end where Pegg breaks down? Such incredible acting, just pure emotion.
Richard Wilson4 said:Hot Fuzz is definitely the best one in the Cornetto trilogy
I wouldn't say "definitely," but yeah, it's the best. I actually just rewatched The World's End the other day—it’s surprisingly good! Honestly, it doesn't feel much weaker than Shaun of the Dead or Fuzzo.
The characters and the plot are pretty weak, but man, the action is top-tier—which is really all you want from an action flick anyway. For me, it’s a total win; the fight choreography is basically on par with John Wick, though I’d say this one feels way more brutal. It’s weird, though, because everyone raves about Wick, but they seem to be hating on this one for no reason. Maybe it lacks a bit of that lighthearted, fun vibe since the whole thing is super dark, but hey, that was clearly the style they were going for, so you gotta respect the vision.
That one sequence that looks like a single ten-minute long take? It kicks off with a car chase, moves straight into a massive shootout in that building, and wraps up with another chase... honestly, it’s easily the best part of the movie. 🙏
It’s actually kind of wild how that Indian woman special ops soldier ends up being a much more compelling character than the actual lead.
Mark Adams6 said:I caught this movie a few days ago and—honestly?—it didn't really blow me away. It’s just... okay. Like, it’s one of those movies where you won't feel the need to skip scenes, and you probably won't turn it off halfway through, but it totally lacks that "wow" factor. The storytelling feels pretty flat and one-note. Still, I'm not complaining! I'm actually kind of happy with it because, let's face it, an average movie like this is a total luxury compared to the absolute junk the Hollywood studio system dumps on us every single day. Roman Polanski missed the mark by not centering the story on Zola, and man, that cost him having a true masterpiece on his hands.
I watched it too—definitely middle-of-the-road, but still worth a watch if you have the time.
About that whole thing with focusing on Zola—look, the movie runs over two hours and covers several years, which is exactly where it trips up. The focus keeps jumping around from one thing to the next. They tried to cram way too much plot into such a short runtime. There just wasn't enough breathing room to really dive into Zola, because if they had, it would've been a completely different movie altogether. It probably would've worked way better as a limited series on Netflix or something.
I think you've got it wrong—honestly, her acting is the absolute best part of the whole thing. It pulls the entire movie up at least two or three levels! She’s just phenomenal, and you can tell she knows exactly what kind of flick she's in, which is why those one-liners land so perfectly.