Warner Bros.
in Movies ·
...so, I'm finally starting a thread for this: describe a movie in a single post 😁 🙈
Home ›
Larry Martin11 › Posts
Posts by Larry Martin11
371 posts shown.
Warner Bros.
in Movies ·
@Chris Morgan67
The more I dwell on this movie, the less I actually know what to think about it 😳. So, here’s attempt number two—this time with a little bit of self-quoting...
While I was watching, it had me completely hooked. But staring at those credits roll, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was missing that other, fetishistic, mad, "associative," non-storytelling Cronenberg—that raw mastermind who treats sex primarily as a "symbol" rather than just an act, and whose violence is endlessly terrifying (because it's always a gateway to something else) while simultaneously being breathtakingly stylized 😍. Maybe, looking back at my favorite moments—after all, he’s the man who uncovered the unbearable side of media technology, but also the bearable side of Debbie Harry in Videodrome, and managed to pull a wilder Vaughan out of the "angelic" Noah (both, of course, are just different dimensions of my favorite Elias Koteas)—maybe I expected too much? Is it possible I’m unsatisfied because he decided to embrace straight storytelling, effectively stripping away a huge part of what I love most about his work?
To be fair, he’s usually figured out how to pull it off: History of Violence maintained a fine layer of social critique beneath the surface, along with that beautiful stylization of violence (that encounter with the brother 😍 ) and the way he repurposes familiar imagery in unexpected ways (that staircase sex scene is so quintessentially Cronenberg...). So, even if it fell apart toward the end, there was still plenty to enjoy... Here, though—perhaps due to the script alone—the use of contextual layers felt somewhat skimpy to me. The characters' motivations, rooted in their past mistakes or experiences, just didn't feel sufficient to drive the action, no matter how crucial they were to the plot. I wanted the horror of the American system, which results in the isolated segment we see in the film, to get more breathing room as either a political or social phenomenon. And while there were attempts—small sparks that mattered for both the story and the larger picture, like Nikolaiev’s attitude toward the Ukrainian prostitute—it just wasn't enough... All that remained of the stylization was a "stylized world" that feels like a bizarrely beautiful blend of noir and detective cartoons 🙂. It felt like the context was abandoned because the director didn't know what to do with it (...location isn't usually a big deal for Cronenberg, but occasionally it gains meaning beyond just being a setting—History of Violence absolutely had to have its roots in the US, because nowhere else would that story resonate as powerfully as in a small American town; Eastern Promises, however, fails to leverage its London setting, despite trying here and there. The exteriors are shot drastically worse than the interiors, making a good portion of the film feel like it’s taking place "nowhere." Even the attempt to use "doubly authentic" elements—like the Chelsea fans before a match—failed miserably in a poorly staged scene that missed a chance to use such a great "London" signifier
.) ...The core plot is a problem in itself. The female lead, who functions as the catalyst for everything, is basically a cliché. It makes me wonder if the film wouldn't have had a much better, more serious tone if she had been avoided entirely. That would have saved it from the naive, unnecessary "sugar-coating" at the end (which felt totally out of place) and the habitually unconvincing Naomi Watts, whom I simply don't understand was cast for this role. Granted, removing the female "moral compass" would mean needing to redefine the whole film, but I’d honestly be happier if that happened. Maybe then there wouldn't be room for that middle sentence, "Than make the next one right," which perfectly summarized her purpose in the film—but then again, I've never been a fan of those overly simplistic (and frankly, a bit cheap) screenwriter tricks, no matter how sweet they might seem...🙂
If we strip Watts out of the equation—which I did, because I was craving some "old school" Cronenberg—I actually stumbled upon some fresh acting dimensions. Viggo Mortensen delivers another stellar performance here; he’s quite frankly wonderfully unrecognizable and just plain brilliant 🙂. Mueller-Stahl is a fantastic foil for him, too. Both actors squeeze everything they can out of roles that are far less conventional than I’d like to believe—though they still possess a much finer layer of depth than what you typically see in "these kinds" of movies. Nuance matters, motivation is everything, and in this regard, nobody—not the actors, the writer, nor the director giving them space—fell short or felt forgettable. However, the one who truly delighted me was the least praised of the trio, Vincent Cassel. He’s the "pretty boy" of French cinema, often pigeonholed into mindless English-language roles, but here he takes on his most heartbreaking, expressive, and arguably most underrated turn. It’s easy to overlook how unusual this role is and how beautifully he plays it. He crafts such a "refined" portrayal of an unrefined man—someone whose existence is far less subtle or inconspicuous than Nikolaiev’s, even though he constantly insists on being invisible ("I'm just a driver."). He essentially becomes whatever he thinks people expect him to be, and since he knows he can't meet those expectations, he ends up destroying himself instead. He effectively has no voice—not literally in his decisions, but nowhere else either. His reactions always seem a beat too late, and honestly, the only thing saving him from total insignificance is the fact that blood is thicker than water. Cassel plays him with an unexpected tenderness that I didn't think he had in him—he isn't afraid of looking weak and shows a lovely ability to bypass clichés. Where I feared cheapness the most, I was instead met with that gorgeous scene with the "party girls." It’s beautiful, though not because of the content—which is endlessly brutal toward everyone involved. The girls are treated as mere "meat" or "merchandise," stripped of any dimension; Nikolai is caught in a situation where the end justifies the means (while also becoming "meat" for Kirill); and Kirill is bound by what his social standing demands, even if it leaves him torn. It’s all handled through the way it’s acted: I wasn't sure whether to laugh or feel awkward given the tension and that "forbidden" eroticism, which provided a stunning contrast to the usual banalization of "weakness"—something usually forbidden, yet so glaringly obvious here. There are moments of heavy, profound subtext, too—the basement scene is his best attempt at playing with the fragmentation Kirill can't escape from (even within the basement itself). The conversation with his father and Nikolaiev in front of the van is rawer, but equally successful. There's a pervasive, subtle sadness to it all, which reminds me most of the relationship between Tonny and his father in *Pusher II*. As a total sentimentalist, my biggest issue with this "favorite layer" of Cronenberg’s film is how much it mirrors Refn’s masterpiece, even if this doesn't quite reach those heights. Though, to be fair, Kirill has the upper hand because he betrays his father without the father having fully betrayed him first, whereas Tonny sees no choice at all and lacks even a false protector. Aside from that, both are immature, voiceless, and completely ill-equipped for their situations, which ultimately leaves them terrified. They are very similar. Cassel might not quite hit the level Mikkelsen maintains, but he does have the advantage of being the lead, so he has more room to maneuver...🙂
...and since Refn was mentioned, the similarities between the two films run deeper. Refn isn't particularly interested in underworld dynamics so much as human connections—specifically, the relationship one has with oneself. (Though Cronenberg is a stylist, so his characters carry their life stories tattooed on their skin, whereas Refn is a realist, and Tonny merely shames himself with that silly tattoo, even if he doesn't realize it). Honestly, I wish Cronenberg had learned a bit more from Refn's work, assuming he even watched it... I know most people will say they aren't comparable, but there are so many overlapping motifs...
...of course, aside from the pricing—which might have hit me a little too hard personally—the movie has its own obvious charms: that sauna fight is exactly the kind of thing I love about Cronenberg 😍, and the "initiation rite" is also masterful (if I felt even the slightest urge to slap Mortensen, it was right when he stood up from his chair), even if it leaned a bit too heavily into being a "caricature." And since the ending didn't quite land for me (and I don't just mean the very end, but those hospital scenes with both the detective and Anna, which felt like a subpar version of Deja Vu), I have to at least mention that brilliant, mosaic-like opening... the interior production design is way too good (it actually reminded me of how they play with space in Pusher—using a family celebration as a ritual within a setting that’s essentially hell, through which you see the hypocrisy of the central figures unfold: Semyon is much like Tony’s father, yet Milo is magically two-sided, sharing nothing but an obsession with detail between his refinement and his roughness; he operates on a somewhat different level, whereas in Kirill, just like in Tony, there's this dual need to protect and be protected when facing similar characters in similar situations), and you really have to tip your hat to the entire cast for those magical physical transformations... the cinematography is solid, but in a strange way—the gorgeously "costumed" interiors are pushed to their absolute limit, while the exteriors feel almost non-existent, which bothered me...
...but what kind of movie is this, ultimately? What is it even about? If I approach it as some sort of thriller (which it really isn't), then it’s visually striking, a little cliché, beautiful but somehow not all that unique... however, if I view it as a heavy study of how we behave, our motivations, the weight of external influences, and the horror of the choices that haunt us—then I like it much more, though perhaps it still "missed the mark" slightly. Maybe Ebert didn't win me over after all, but the simple fact that I watched this three days ago and I'm still thinking about it so intensely means Cronenberg actually pulled something off properly 🙂
The more I dwell on this movie, the less I actually know what to think about it 😳. So, here’s attempt number two—this time with a little bit of self-quoting...
While I was watching, it had me completely hooked. But staring at those credits roll, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was missing that other, fetishistic, mad, "associative," non-storytelling Cronenberg—that raw mastermind who treats sex primarily as a "symbol" rather than just an act, and whose violence is endlessly terrifying (because it's always a gateway to something else) while simultaneously being breathtakingly stylized 😍. Maybe, looking back at my favorite moments—after all, he’s the man who uncovered the unbearable side of media technology, but also the bearable side of Debbie Harry in Videodrome, and managed to pull a wilder Vaughan out of the "angelic" Noah (both, of course, are just different dimensions of my favorite Elias Koteas)—maybe I expected too much? Is it possible I’m unsatisfied because he decided to embrace straight storytelling, effectively stripping away a huge part of what I love most about his work?
To be fair, he’s usually figured out how to pull it off: History of Violence maintained a fine layer of social critique beneath the surface, along with that beautiful stylization of violence (that encounter with the brother 😍 ) and the way he repurposes familiar imagery in unexpected ways (that staircase sex scene is so quintessentially Cronenberg...). So, even if it fell apart toward the end, there was still plenty to enjoy... Here, though—perhaps due to the script alone—the use of contextual layers felt somewhat skimpy to me. The characters' motivations, rooted in their past mistakes or experiences, just didn't feel sufficient to drive the action, no matter how crucial they were to the plot. I wanted the horror of the American system, which results in the isolated segment we see in the film, to get more breathing room as either a political or social phenomenon. And while there were attempts—small sparks that mattered for both the story and the larger picture, like Nikolaiev’s attitude toward the Ukrainian prostitute—it just wasn't enough... All that remained of the stylization was a "stylized world" that feels like a bizarrely beautiful blend of noir and detective cartoons 🙂. It felt like the context was abandoned because the director didn't know what to do with it (...location isn't usually a big deal for Cronenberg, but occasionally it gains meaning beyond just being a setting—History of Violence absolutely had to have its roots in the US, because nowhere else would that story resonate as powerfully as in a small American town; Eastern Promises, however, fails to leverage its London setting, despite trying here and there. The exteriors are shot drastically worse than the interiors, making a good portion of the film feel like it’s taking place "nowhere." Even the attempt to use "doubly authentic" elements—like the Chelsea fans before a match—failed miserably in a poorly staged scene that missed a chance to use such a great "London" signifier
.) ...The core plot is a problem in itself. The female lead, who functions as the catalyst for everything, is basically a cliché. It makes me wonder if the film wouldn't have had a much better, more serious tone if she had been avoided entirely. That would have saved it from the naive, unnecessary "sugar-coating" at the end (which felt totally out of place) and the habitually unconvincing Naomi Watts, whom I simply don't understand was cast for this role. Granted, removing the female "moral compass" would mean needing to redefine the whole film, but I’d honestly be happier if that happened. Maybe then there wouldn't be room for that middle sentence, "Than make the next one right," which perfectly summarized her purpose in the film—but then again, I've never been a fan of those overly simplistic (and frankly, a bit cheap) screenwriter tricks, no matter how sweet they might seem...🙂
If we strip Watts out of the equation—which I did, because I was craving some "old school" Cronenberg—I actually stumbled upon some fresh acting dimensions. Viggo Mortensen delivers another stellar performance here; he’s quite frankly wonderfully unrecognizable and just plain brilliant 🙂. Mueller-Stahl is a fantastic foil for him, too. Both actors squeeze everything they can out of roles that are far less conventional than I’d like to believe—though they still possess a much finer layer of depth than what you typically see in "these kinds" of movies. Nuance matters, motivation is everything, and in this regard, nobody—not the actors, the writer, nor the director giving them space—fell short or felt forgettable. However, the one who truly delighted me was the least praised of the trio, Vincent Cassel. He’s the "pretty boy" of French cinema, often pigeonholed into mindless English-language roles, but here he takes on his most heartbreaking, expressive, and arguably most underrated turn. It’s easy to overlook how unusual this role is and how beautifully he plays it. He crafts such a "refined" portrayal of an unrefined man—someone whose existence is far less subtle or inconspicuous than Nikolaiev’s, even though he constantly insists on being invisible ("I'm just a driver."). He essentially becomes whatever he thinks people expect him to be, and since he knows he can't meet those expectations, he ends up destroying himself instead. He effectively has no voice—not literally in his decisions, but nowhere else either. His reactions always seem a beat too late, and honestly, the only thing saving him from total insignificance is the fact that blood is thicker than water. Cassel plays him with an unexpected tenderness that I didn't think he had in him—he isn't afraid of looking weak and shows a lovely ability to bypass clichés. Where I feared cheapness the most, I was instead met with that gorgeous scene with the "party girls." It’s beautiful, though not because of the content—which is endlessly brutal toward everyone involved. The girls are treated as mere "meat" or "merchandise," stripped of any dimension; Nikolai is caught in a situation where the end justifies the means (while also becoming "meat" for Kirill); and Kirill is bound by what his social standing demands, even if it leaves him torn. It’s all handled through the way it’s acted: I wasn't sure whether to laugh or feel awkward given the tension and that "forbidden" eroticism, which provided a stunning contrast to the usual banalization of "weakness"—something usually forbidden, yet so glaringly obvious here. There are moments of heavy, profound subtext, too—the basement scene is his best attempt at playing with the fragmentation Kirill can't escape from (even within the basement itself). The conversation with his father and Nikolaiev in front of the van is rawer, but equally successful. There's a pervasive, subtle sadness to it all, which reminds me most of the relationship between Tonny and his father in *Pusher II*. As a total sentimentalist, my biggest issue with this "favorite layer" of Cronenberg’s film is how much it mirrors Refn’s masterpiece, even if this doesn't quite reach those heights. Though, to be fair, Kirill has the upper hand because he betrays his father without the father having fully betrayed him first, whereas Tonny sees no choice at all and lacks even a false protector. Aside from that, both are immature, voiceless, and completely ill-equipped for their situations, which ultimately leaves them terrified. They are very similar. Cassel might not quite hit the level Mikkelsen maintains, but he does have the advantage of being the lead, so he has more room to maneuver...🙂
...and since Refn was mentioned, the similarities between the two films run deeper. Refn isn't particularly interested in underworld dynamics so much as human connections—specifically, the relationship one has with oneself. (Though Cronenberg is a stylist, so his characters carry their life stories tattooed on their skin, whereas Refn is a realist, and Tonny merely shames himself with that silly tattoo, even if he doesn't realize it). Honestly, I wish Cronenberg had learned a bit more from Refn's work, assuming he even watched it... I know most people will say they aren't comparable, but there are so many overlapping motifs...
...of course, aside from the pricing—which might have hit me a little too hard personally—the movie has its own obvious charms: that sauna fight is exactly the kind of thing I love about Cronenberg 😍, and the "initiation rite" is also masterful (if I felt even the slightest urge to slap Mortensen, it was right when he stood up from his chair), even if it leaned a bit too heavily into being a "caricature." And since the ending didn't quite land for me (and I don't just mean the very end, but those hospital scenes with both the detective and Anna, which felt like a subpar version of Deja Vu), I have to at least mention that brilliant, mosaic-like opening... the interior production design is way too good (it actually reminded me of how they play with space in Pusher—using a family celebration as a ritual within a setting that’s essentially hell, through which you see the hypocrisy of the central figures unfold: Semyon is much like Tony’s father, yet Milo is magically two-sided, sharing nothing but an obsession with detail between his refinement and his roughness; he operates on a somewhat different level, whereas in Kirill, just like in Tony, there's this dual need to protect and be protected when facing similar characters in similar situations), and you really have to tip your hat to the entire cast for those magical physical transformations... the cinematography is solid, but in a strange way—the gorgeously "costumed" interiors are pushed to their absolute limit, while the exteriors feel almost non-existent, which bothered me...
...but what kind of movie is this, ultimately? What is it even about? If I approach it as some sort of thriller (which it really isn't), then it’s visually striking, a little cliché, beautiful but somehow not all that unique... however, if I view it as a heavy study of how we behave, our motivations, the weight of external influences, and the horror of the choices that haunt us—then I like it much more, though perhaps it still "missed the mark" slightly. Maybe Ebert didn't win me over after all, but the simple fact that I watched this three days ago and I'm still thinking about it so intensely means Cronenberg actually pulled something off properly 🙂
Warner Bros.
in Movies ·
...wrote this massive post—then the server wiped the whole thing clean 😢 I guess I'll just sit here and feel sorry for myself now, shall I? 😵
Sundance Film Festival 2008
in Movies ·
...Alright, folks—the biggest documentary festival in America ( 😁 ) actually kicked off this past Monday, yet it feels like we've all collectively decided to pretend it isn't happening 🙂. To make sure we don't stay in total silence, I figured I'd start a thread so we can actually talk about it! 🙂 As usual, you can find the full lineup over on the official website. The first wave of reviews and chatter is already starting to pick up, so it’s high time we weighed in 🙂. What's on your watchlist—if anything? Have you caught anything yet, and more importantly, what did you think? Are you happy with the selection this year (or are you missing Jennifer Lawrence? 😵)?
Unfortunately, due to some personal stuff, I'm totally skipping Sundance 😢 for now—though hopefully, that changes 🙂. Regardless, I definitely won't be missing the discussion this Saturday 😳
Unfortunately, due to some personal stuff, I'm totally skipping Sundance 😢 for now—though hopefully, that changes 🙂. Regardless, I definitely won't be missing the discussion this Saturday 😳
...if you’d just cut back on using the word "stupid" (and its various synonyms), we’d all probably get along a whole lot better 🙂 that’s why the post was deleted—because, you know, we should actually maintain some level of decent communication 🙂 personally, I don't care; I'm used to being hated 😁 but it's a different story when it comes to everyone else...
...you won't believe it, but we actually agree 🙂 I really should have deleted the spoiler for Sixth Butt—the rules are clear about no spoilers 🙂 but do you want to know why I didn't (aside from my belief that it's basically the only movie everyone has actually seen, making it a bit pedantic to insist on it here—though, sure, it could have been any movie)? It's because it isn't my job to spend 24/7 policing every single thing people write and correcting every little slip-up; if people don't want to be respectful toward one another, then so be it. This thread is supposed to be a place where we all remember that in any conversation (and clearly, that includes spoilers), you SHOULD think about others—that we should laugh at the reveal and think twice next time. But since this place has turned into a venue for bickering and accusations, I don't see the point in acting differently 🙂 seriously 🙂
...or maybe it's because I'm a mod? Am I supposed to give myself permission to play the "corrector" for every instance of rudeness, just so God forbid some guy doesn't feel offended when he gets called out for failing to use his brain beforehand? Thanks, but no thanks 🙂
...you won't believe it, but we actually agree 🙂 I really should have deleted the spoiler for Sixth Butt—the rules are clear about no spoilers 🙂 but do you want to know why I didn't (aside from my belief that it's basically the only movie everyone has actually seen, making it a bit pedantic to insist on it here—though, sure, it could have been any movie)? It's because it isn't my job to spend 24/7 policing every single thing people write and correcting every little slip-up; if people don't want to be respectful toward one another, then so be it. This thread is supposed to be a place where we all remember that in any conversation (and clearly, that includes spoilers), you SHOULD think about others—that we should laugh at the reveal and think twice next time. But since this place has turned into a venue for bickering and accusations, I don't see the point in acting differently 🙂 seriously 🙂
...or maybe it's because I'm a mod? Am I supposed to give myself permission to play the "corrector" for every instance of rudeness, just so God forbid some guy doesn't feel offended when he gets called out for failing to use his brain beforehand? Thanks, but no thanks 🙂
...I deleted it because it was genuinely offensive, and honestly, this whole thread has completely lost the plot—instead of people becoming more tolerant here, everyone’s just doubling down on the bickering and fighting;
And let's be real—Chloe Nguyen hit the nail on the head. Everyone already knows how the Sixth Butt ends up, but seriously... everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, nitpicking over tiny details whenever it suits them, just because nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong...
And let's be real—Chloe Nguyen hit the nail on the head. Everyone already knows how the Sixth Butt ends up, but seriously... everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, nitpicking over tiny details whenever it suits them, just because nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong...
...honestly, any sense of humor on this forum seems to have completely evaporated—even when we're talking about topics like 🙂. Look, can we please stop with the personal attacks? I already deal with more than enough problematic threads as it is 🙂, and just so we're clear, insults are still against the rules and subject to punishment...
...just so there's no confusion, I deleted the second post because it was just quoting the first one, and it wouldn't be fair to let it stay up like that...
...just so there's no confusion, I deleted the second post because it was just quoting the first one, and it wouldn't be fair to let it stay up like that...
Top 10 most boring Movies
in Movies ·
ruggedjackal46 said:When I think about the absolute most mind-numbing movies out there, names like "The Talented Mr. Ripley," "Alexander," and "Andrei Rublev" immediately jump to mind.
Honestly, this list is a bit all over the place. I get why some people might not be fans of stuff like "Lost in Translation" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," but they aren't exactly impenetrable puzzles that leave you totally lost, nor are they even particularly long.
Look, man, seriously—how does that even work? 😲
🙂
...completely independent of ruggedjackal46 🙂See, here’s my issue with these kinds of lists—they basically give everyone permission to trash things they simply don't have the patience, the willpower, or occasionally even the basic knowledge to understand. We live in an era where everything moves at breakneck speed; we want to consume everything instantly and categorize it just as fast. And then, suddenly, you're stuck with this endless stream of mindless lists created just for the sake of being listed. 😵
@Lawrence Bishop14
...the whole point is to show how some users are just endless control freaks who’d rather solve everything through pure repression 😉
...no, obviously not... just a little reminder for people—not because of the mods, but for their own sake and everyone else's—to actually think before they spoil something. Maybe then we'll see fewer spoilers 🙂 the idea was actually pretty decent, so why not give it a shot? 🙂
...the whole point is to show how some users are just endless control freaks who’d rather solve everything through pure repression 😉
...no, obviously not... just a little reminder for people—not because of the mods, but for their own sake and everyone else's—to actually think before they spoil something. Maybe then we'll see fewer spoilers 🙂 the idea was actually pretty decent, so why not give it a shot? 🙂
...so we're just gonna ban half the forum now? ruggedjackal46, you know I'm down, but I don't think the higher-ups would see it that way 😍
...look, all those requests are already covered in the movie info thread—which, let's be honest, nobody actually reads 🙂. We try our best to tag spoilers whenever we spot them, but we aren't omniscient, so we don't catch everything 🙂. That said, maybe show a little flexibility? If we're in a thread dedicated to a specific movie, the people there have likely seen it and want to talk about it. Spoilers are pretty much inevitable at that point—you can't really have a conversation without being a little "unsterile" 🙂
...but hey, I'm all for the effort Let's keep the spoilers under control 🎉 we're all just trying to learn how to be decent to one another 😍
...but hey, I'm all for the effort Let's keep the spoilers under control 🎉 we're all just trying to learn how to be decent to one another 😍
The Darjeeling Limited
in Movies ·
...what's even the big deal? honestly, I’m just adding it to that "to-watch" list of mine that literally never ends 😵
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days.
in Movies ·
...alright, guys and girls, look—everyone’s entitled to their own take on things. throwing insults isn't really an argument, is it? 🙂
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
David Price5 said:Don't forget William H. Macy once you take a closer look at all the actors chosen by the Coen brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson...
...well... I didn't mention him on purpose (I didn't want to get bogged down in the details, especially since I'm already drifting so far off-topic 🙂). Look, I think Macy is great... really. But honestly? If I start listing people like him, there's no end to it—so I'll just stop right there. 😳 🙂
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
...well, I think we can all agree on this one 🙂 if you ask me, he’s easily the most powerhouse American actor from that younger—middle to high school age group—generation. > is right behind him, followed by this steady stream of "supporting" actors who are always top-tier (ranging from > and > as the slightly older guys, up to—guilty as charged—>)... but >? He just has this specific kind of genius. He’s truly something else 😍
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
redowl90 said:Hold on just a second—someone stop the world!
Am I reading this right? Are we actually labeling Showtime and Flawless as low points in De Niro's career? That’s blasphemy, for goodness' sake! Pure blasphemy!
I'm sitting here watching Showtime on local TV right now (probably my third time seeing it), and let me tell you, that movie is FUN. Seriously, it's one of the best movies you could pick if you just want to relax and have a good time.
Then there's Flawless, where you have De Niro playing a regular guy who's dealing with some heavy stuff alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman (😍). It's a combination that's hard to mess up, especially with a director involved. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating about the directing part, but the fact remains: it's probably Schumacher's best work in the last 15 years (aside from A Time to Kill).
...don't stop the world quite yet, it hasn't come to that level of catastrophe! 😉 But yeah, for me, both movies were misses—mostly because neither one was actually fun to watch, which meant they both missed the entire point (to be genuinely entertaining, and in one case, even a little bit thought-provoking...) despite having 😍Hoffman
on board. 🙂
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
@John Peterson3
...I was honestly just looking for some clarity here—why would anyone label Colin Farrell an "intruder" in Alexander, or suggest Alexander is a low point in his career, especially if you're already counting movies like Daredevil among his bad stuff? I didn't quite follow your logic...🙂 Is it because of the genre or something else?
...I was honestly just looking for some clarity here—why would anyone label Colin Farrell an "intruder" in Alexander, or suggest Alexander is a low point in his career, especially if you're already counting movies like Daredevil among his bad stuff? I didn't quite follow your logic...🙂 Is it because of the genre or something else?
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
John Peterson3 said:Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell
A total rogue...
...yeah, I'm not following this either... let's be real here—he’s starred in movies way worse than that. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to just remember him for the hits? But reality isn't quite that kind. And even if we flip the script, Colin is definitely not the weakest link in a Stone film, nor is he even the worst actor—in my book, he actually did exactly what the director asked of him, and arguably did it quite well... unlike Angelina, who is just... well, polarizing, to say the least...
...it's no secret that actors make bad movies. It's also no secret that great actors make absolute disasters. I mean, calling Showtime the one "outlier" or stain on De Niro's career is almost laughable when you forget he was in Analyze That, Flawless (which, honestly, might be a bigger stain on the otherwise flawless Hoffman—that could easily be *his* outlier) and a whole string of other flops where his acting wasn't exactly top-tier. And we're talking about a man with a brilliant career built on iconic roles! So why shouldn't Farrell have more than one "outlier" in his relatively short, scattered career? 🙂
edit: taking back what I said about Hoffman—I totally blanked on Along Came Polly 😳
The "intrusions" that defined the film
in Movies ·
...I wouldn't say I'm 😍 exactly. I'm dying to see it, really, but I don't have the heart to watch it before it hits theaters—I just have this gut feeling it's one of "those" movies that practically begs for the biggest screen possible 😍