One of my main gripes—and I think someone already touched on this above—is the music. I don't mean the actual quality of the soundtrack or the sound engineering is bad; rather, it's the way they lean so heavily on pop culture references just to force a sense of nostalgia. They'll play nothing but hits from the 80s in certain scenes simply because that's when the film is set. It feels totally unnecessary...
In truth, this film doesn't even need those crutches. But I've noticed it's becoming a standard trope in almost every modern production set in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. I don't know about you all, but personally, I find it lazy and predictable.
I have to agree with the posts above; the movie was tedious and frankly quite mediocre. I can't wrap my head around why the IMDb rating is so high—it seems like the only people who actually enjoyed it were five-year-olds.
Edward Gray43 said:You’d be genuinely shocked if you realized just how much CGI garbage is shoved into movies these days. And I’m not even talking about Sci-Fi, fantasy epics, or those over-the-top action sequences. I mean your run-of-the-mill dramas and everyday scenes that look perfectly fine—scenes where, frankly, you don't even need special effects to begin with.
And what makes you so sure that isn't the case with this specific film?
Edward Gray43 said:This movie is proof that you don't need a massive budget, endless locations, elaborate sets, or heavy special effects to make something great. You just need a stellar cast and an incredibly simple story told through a truly creative lens.
I fail to see why you would even need special effects for a film to be considered excellent. By that logic, only high-budget sci-fi or fantasy flicks could ever be called masterpieces. A well-written drama featuring top-tier acting will always outshine all this modern superhero CGI garbage.
Haha, once the first post finally drops after sixteen and a half years on a thread this massive, I suspect most people will be thinking exactly what you are. 😁
I watched The World's Fastest Indian from 2005 today, and I’m left with the distinct impression that Hopkins's character here is virtually identical to his role in The Father from last year—the one that earned him that trophy for Best Actor.
In fact, the character is so strikingly similar that you could easily argue The Father serves as a direct sequel to this film.
I’m not sure if anyone else caught this connection, or if it's just me?
Pointless. I’d give it a zero for originality. Casting "Saul Goodman" was a complete misfire; the role just doesn't fit him. Honestly, I don't see the point in even making this movie.
Before I actually sat down to watch it, I was under the impression that Chadwick Boseman’s nomination was largely a tribute to his untimely passing—you know, a nod to the fact that he was clearly playing in the big leagues with the A-list elite before he left us. But after seeing the film, I’ve completely changed my tune. That nomination was earned fair and square.
Personally, I might have to say it’s the best in its category. "The Mountain Cannot" is an absolute classic. I recently revisited *Very Bad Things* (1998), and frankly, it’s a bit of a trip. It’s one of those films that manages to be deeply uncomfortable while maintaining this strange, dark momentum. It doesn't hold your hand, and it certainly doesn't care if you find the protagonists likable—which, let's be honest, they aren't. They are absolute disasters. It’s a cynical look at how quickly a "normal" life can spiral once you stop respecting the social contract. There’s a specific kind of chaotic energy in the way the characters attempt to cover their tracks, which only leads to more absurdity. It reminds me a bit of the frantic, spiraling tension you see in *Crank*, though much darker and far less "action-movie" focused. I remember seeing a thread where Jacob Alvarez mentioned his distaste for the nihilism here, and I have to say, I see his point, but I disagree. The nihilism is exactly what makes it work. If you try to inject morality into a story like this, you lose the edge. You have to lean into the mess. It’s definitely not for everyone. If you’re looking for a hero to root for, you’re going to be disappointed. But if you want to watch a slow-motion train wreck fueled by bad decisions and even worse luck, it’s worth a look. Just don't expect to feel good when the credits roll.
Daniel Davis40 said:Honestly, I thought the whole thing was pretty great when I first saw the movie. It was entertaining enough, and I actually really liked the lead actress.
And how exactly do they look? 🍿
Well, what can I tell you? Those waitresses dancing on the counters really do exist, but there isn't much that captures the atmosphere depicted in the movie. For the people who frequent the place, it isn't some grand, cinematic experience; it’s just a standard night out. To the regulars who hang out there constantly, it's nothing more than any other local tavern. It’s mostly just crowds of drunks and unsophisticated crowds; it simply isn't the kind of party they portrayed in the film. And honestly, even nowadays, people are staring at their phones more than they are looking at the women. Besides, you can find plenty of footage of real-life Tavern bars on YouTube if you want to see for yourself.
Look at how many fans there are just here in America 🤣 Look, my point stands: the movie is fun precisely because it’s a bit of a mess. It isn't the best ever, nor is it the worst in its genre, but it holds its own. However, I've looked at what those kinds of bars actually look like in real life, and what they show in this film bears zero resemblance to reality; it's incredibly exaggerated. By the way, someone brought up the budget—$45 million wasn't actually considered a low budget back in 2000. Just saying. Also, if I recall correctly, I read somewhere that this was one of the last films shot in New York City before 9/11. Personally, I think the film would have functioned much better and more effectively as a serious drama, but hey, if the director was tasked with turning it into what it became, who am I to judge? As for the argument regarding the state of the USA at that time and how it contributes to the film's atmosphere, you could say that about pretty much any pre-9/11 film from the late 90s. I don't see how that somehow elevates the actual quality of the movie.
Good grief, what a total piece of trash this movie turned out to be. 😁 I’ll give it this much: the dancers are attractive, and the lead actress is quite cute, but honestly, that’s the only redeeming quality about the whole thing. 😁 As for the men in this film—aside from the lead and John Goodman—they are portrayed as nothing more than complete idiots who lose all sense of dignity the moment they spot an attractive woman, basically just running around giving each other high fives. Even the bar owner (Maria Bello) looks way older than her actual age; she was supposedly in her early thirties during filming, yet she looks like she's well into her forties. Given how ridiculous the plot is, I suppose if nothing else, I did end up laughing my head off a million times over. 😁
I wasn't even aware that Singaporean women—or Chinese women, for that matter—were this stunning; personally, I find them incredibly exotic and beautiful. It has been quite some time since I've seen such a high concentration of beautiful women in a single movie. I assume reality isn't quite as polished as the depiction in this film, but I would definitely love to visit Singapore to see for myself.
Extremely tedious film. I spent most of the runtime waiting for something actually interesting to happen out there in the jungle, but instead, we get stuck with endless scenes set in Europe, drowning in all that philosophical hand-wringing about how, why, and when. It was a completely missed opportunity.
Personally, I consider this one of the most repulsive films ever made. It’s essentially cinema for deranged masochists. I watched it about two months ago, and I kid you not, within the first ten minutes I found myself asking, "WTF am I watching? Am I actually sane?" But since I have this stubborn habit of seeing every project through to the end, I forced myself to endure the torture just to earn my title as a complete masochist for the day. Honestly, it was the worst ninety minutes of my life. And people actually call this "art"? It is absurdity squared. Disgusting characters, a disgusting "plot," and nothing but revolting scenes. I gave it a 2/10 on IMDb, but I think I'll be revising that down to a 1/10.
Alright... I would only ever consider doing that for purely aesthetic reasons. It isn’t even an issue for anyone else, but it bothers me because I notice it constantly. And regarding exercises—is it actually possible to "gain" even a couple of inches through some high-quality training? Logic tells me it's impossible, but I suppose I should ask...