There’s already a thread for this, so just search for it and ask a mod to move yours. In the future, definitely check if a movie has its own topic before starting a new one.
A total disaster. Honestly, one of the worst things I’ve ever sat through in my entire life.
It’s not even just about overusing the slow-mo effect—it’s that there isn't a single frame where they aren't messing with the footage. The directors lean on slow motion so much, and they mix it in such a clumsy way, that it feels less like a movie and more like a glorified music video. Compare that to how Marty McFly handled things in "Shine a Light"—that was a genuine concert experience. And don't even get me started on the 3D. It’s basically useless. The glasses just get in the way; it would have been way better in 2D.
The songs and the band themselves kind of saved the day, but despite the killer music, walking out of the theater left me feeling totally miserable. I actually planned on seeing this at least five times because U2 is one of my all-time favorite bands, but this is such a train wreck that I’d rather watch a live set or just listen to an album than deal with this crap ever again.
Dana Peterson4 said:The concept is killer, I really think so. But honestly? I feel like the lead actress is doing just a bit too much. It really leveled everything up. Honestly, there were moments where she didn't come across as happy and Lucky—it felt more like she was just being superficial and clumsy. Just my two cents.
What do you even mean by "potentiated"? Honestly, you just have to play it superficial and clumsy... you know? Like, be positive and cheerful and confusing all at once. Just throw everything at the wall. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an Oscar win right out of the gate—no need to even wait for nominations.
This wasn't actually my plan, but hey, I think this movie deserves its own thread. Maybe because of this, someone will decide to go check it out, so why not? Here’s my quote from the "last movie," followed by some fresh praise from the maestro Stalin, who—much to my joy (and honestly, expectation)—loved the film.
"Happy-Go-Lucky" (aka "no worries") - Mike Leigh
beautiful. be-au-ti-ful. full beau-ti-ful.
I was praising the flick and the lineup, but then things took a turn when a mediocre "Mamma Mia" hit, followed by a half-decent "Get Carter" and a sort of okay "The Heist." I was starting to get worried, but since the quality streak kept up, we finally landed on an absolute gem. A total masterpiece. It's a different kind of Mike Leigh, but whatever, it's awesome.
The movie kicks off with this totally retro intro—think super old-school fonts and that classic "curtain" montage style. Throughout it all, we see Sally Hawkins as Poppy wandering through the streets on a bike, with the camera constantly riding right "in front of her." The whole idea behind this "intro" is to set the stage for the rest of the film. Nothing massive or explosive really happens; it's just Poppy "wandering the streets," except this time she stays one step ahead of the lens, forcing the camera to chase her down. Leigh insists on these tight close-ups and a really intimate way of filming his characters. In the first half, it feels almost documentary-style (the approach reminded me of Rohmer's "a beautiful marriage" in several spots). He practically keeps them glued to the screen, even when they occasionally slip out of his control—not in terms of proximity, but in behavior, which is most obvious when the driving instructor loses his cool a bit. This film has the best pacing I've seen in theaters in a long time. Compare it to "Zodiac"—unlike that one, which drags you along only to end in total emptiness and a complete vacuum, "Happy-Go-Lucky" doesn't aim for a destination. We don't expect it to "go anywhere," yet it builds the story with brilliant precision and maintains a perfect rhythm. The acting is top-tier across the board. For once, I've found a new favorite modern female character in Sally Hawkins (I recently found a male one too, played by Adam Goldberg in "Two Days in Paris"). I found myself admiring every single move, word, smile, and attitude she threw at us.
Plus, it's hilarious.
So, yeah: stellar acting, great directing, fantastic pacing, smooth and unobtrusive editing, and characters that feel almost caricatured yet remain completely real and grounded. Etc., etc.
A must-watch.
And now (after the vox dei 😁), let's hear the vox populi.
ruggedjackal46 said:Look, it's a solid movie, but honestly? A bit of a snooze. I really wish Lynch had brought more of that energy he uses in his later stuff. He was playing it way too safe here. 😬
😲😲 Whoa, hey now, let's not get carried away with the blasphemy.
I really wanted this one to be serious, but man, it’s actually packed with some solid jokes. The plot feels a bit like a Boratov satire—all that political maneuvering and the weird focus on McCanov's wife's legs—and that pathetic ending? Yeah, those weren't really necessary. But honestly, looking at the big picture, it isn't half bad. It’s a massive step up for the director from "Chuck and Larry," which, let's be real, was a total train wreck.
It’s not bad. Direction-wise, it’s pretty solid. The editing is top-tier, the music fits perfectly, and the acting holds up. Goran Grgić shows he could definitely make the jump to film just like he does on Broadway, and young Pakalovićka really proved she’s a powerhouse actress—this was my first big look at her in a movie, and man, she absolutely outshines everyone when she’s on stage.
The only thing that bugs me is that inevitable touch of melodrama. They kept it to a minimum, but it’s still there, especially when they say the title or during some of the lead actress's early monologues.
Some details are tucked in nicely (like that Iskra TV), but then they overdo it with others (the comic book; okay, I get what the comic book used to represent, but you don't need to show it every ten minutes).
I also liked the cinematic use of the child. The story works perfectly fine without them, but having that face there serves as a constant reminder of how this whole situation actually plays out in real life.
And hey, nice little nod from the screenwriter naming the son Goran, after the actor playing the father. In the first half, while the mother is showering the boy with intense affection, a sharp viewer might catch that as a subtle wink toward the father, whether he's in the room or not.
All in all, it's solid. Better than "Alive and Dead," though I still think Jukin's documentary was better than anything Ačimović has done.
I can't help but mention Radić's absolute nonsense review—if you can even call it that. I’m assuming there was some glitch with the online version because the text is a third of its usual length, and 80% of it is just stuff that has nothing to do with the actual movie. So, here we are...
It’s not bad. Direction-wise, it’s pretty solid. The editing is top-tier, the music fits perfectly, and the acting holds up. Goran Grgić shows he could definitely make the jump to film just like he does on Broadway, and young Pakalovićka really proved she’s a powerhouse actress—this was my first big look at her in a movie, and man, she absolutely outshines everyone when she’s on stage.
The only thing that bugs me is that inevitable touch of melodrama. They kept it to a minimum, but it’s still there, especially when they say the title or during some of the lead actress's early monologues.
Some details are tucked in nicely (like that Iskra TV), but then they overdo it with others (the comic book; okay, I get what the comic book used to represent, but you don't need to show it every ten minutes).
I also liked the cinematic use of the child. The story works perfectly fine without them, but having that face there serves as a constant reminder of how this whole situation actually plays out in real life.
And hey, nice little nod from the screenwriter naming the son Goran, after the actor playing the father. In the first half, while the mother is showering the boy with intense affection, a sharp viewer might catch that as a subtle wink toward the father, whether he's in the room or not.
All in all, it's solid. Better than "Alive and Dead," though I still think Jukin's documentary was better than anything Ačimović has done. -->
I’m not sure who messed up (maybe my comment played a small part?), but just a heads-up: Radić (or more likely their webmaster who probably tripped over the code) fixed the text and posted a proper, correct review.
Nancy Ruiz7 said:Don't take this the wrong way, but I have a feeling anyone who isn't really into that specific brand of dry, cynical American dark comedy might struggle to find the humor here... I was honestly doubling over laughing during the first half, though maybe a little less so later on, but I suspect there were plenty of people in the theater who just didn't get the joke at all. Russell Brand is an absolute genius, truly hilarious and just such a standout performer... as for the rest of the cast, well...
Amanda Nguyen5 said:I never mentioned dark American humor.
Dennis Hall41 said:The first one is just a boring genre flick with a totally predictable twist (I mean, who else could be Keyser Söze besides Kevin Spacey?) and wooden dialogue. It's an absolute slog—repetitive and dull. You only watch it for Mr. Kevin. The second one is overrated. It’s a decent enough movie for high schoolers, though; it fits their sense of humor perfectly. And it isn't even that subversive. It never was..
For "The Usual Suspects," figuring out who Keyser Söze is matters just as much as knowing who killed Janet Leigh in "Psycho." That's basically it.
Dennis Hall41 said:@Arthur Garcia59...Contrary to what you think, I have never looked at art through some elitist lens. For instance, I think "Back to the Future" is a brilliant sci-fi comedy, "Dumb and Dumber" is the best comedy made in the last 50 years, Stephen King and B. E. Ellis are top-tier writers, and "Sith revenge" is the best sci-fi movie since "2001: A Space Odyssey" (if you can even categorize "2001: A Space Odyssey" at all). Those are just a handful of dozens, maybe hundreds, of times where my taste lines up perfectly with what the general public loves..
"I haven't seen Sith revenge," and I've never heard of Ellis, but regarding everything else, as far as I know, most critics actually agree with you... (except for that "last 50 years" part) And honestly, I don't see the issue if the critics and the general public are on the same page.
Dennis Hall41 said:If you think movies like "Arrested Suspect" or "How the War Started on My Island" are the absolute pinnacle of cinema, then honestly, Reygadas just isn't your guy.
Look, "Arrested Suspect" is pretty much at the peak of what filmmaking can be. And "How the War Started on My Island"? That's also an incredible film, especially when you consider the context of where it comes from.
I gave it the first half hour, but if it isn't working, it just isn't working.
Maybe it’s because I spent Saturday bingeing Hitchcock and Schatzberg, and then watched Anderson yesterday—who knows—but man, this is just a massive bore. The actors do nothing but yell. Honestly, seeing Savalas act like this is driving me nuts; he's totally out of it, except for Sutherland, who seems to be playing some stoned, crazy artist-warrior type. There's zero drama, the plot is a mess with no real logic—like, they just get a lieutenant drunk and suddenly he's spilling all his secrets? It’s just bad.
zhabotinsky said:If you want a truly incredible movie that tackles—how should I put this?—the "metaphysics of life's irregularities (love included)," and manages to do it with actual style and wisdom while feeling totally real, go watch L'Atalante by Jean Vigo. If you haven't seen it yet, you're missing out.
Just a heads up, they're showing Vigo on PBS next Saturday morning, so if anyone actually wants to dive into that "metaphysics" thing...
As for all this arguing, you guys are getting pretty entertaining, but seriously, take the debate to the DMs.
Saw his bio on TV yesterday, so I figured I’d add another one to my "Wes Anderson" watchlist. So far, I've only checked out The Darjeeling Limited, which is basically pure directorial perfection, even if the whole thing felt like it was missing just a tiny bit of something.
So, I went to watch this movie knowing absolutely nothing about it other than the director, and once again, I got the treat of seeing a totally stone-faced Bill Murray. Honestly, roles like this—kind of like Lost in Translation—suit him just as perfectly as mafia roles suit Pacina or De Niro. Every single minute of this movie was a blast. Directing-wise, it’s top-tier again. Those long, sweeping horizontal camera shots? Gorgeous. Just gorgeous. But this time, everything else clicked too—the characters felt more complete, the story gets better the more chaotic and nonsensical it becomes, the vibe is spot on, and the soundtrack is killer. Bowie singing in Portuguese? Yes, please.
And don't even get me started on the dialogue and the jokes. The dialogue is easily tied for the best I've ever seen in a film (up there with Reservoir Dogs...), and the humor is so subtle yet effective that I can't tell if it's the director, the writer, or the actors pulling it off.
Basically, it was nearly flawless. I might even throw a perfect ten at it. I kept trying to find something to complain about just to be difficult, but honestly, I couldn't find a single flaw.
+ the cast (Murray, Willem Dafoe, Huston, Blanchett, Wilson, ...) + the three-legged dog 😁
Kudos to Wes Anderson. 🙏
couple of:
Steve Zissou: Can you hear the Jack Whales singing? Ned Plimpton: [tanker goes OFF ] Beautiful. I wonder what they're saying. Steve Zissou: Well actually that's a Sludge tanker over There ... [ Several whales Sing ] Steve Zissou : There you go ! [Several whales sing] Steve Zissou: There you go!
Oseary Drakoulias: You must swear, legally swear that you will not kill that shark, or whatever it is, if it actually exists. Steve Zissou: I'm going to fight it, but I'll let it live. What about my dynamite? Oseary Drakoulias: [to assistant] Phillip, dynamite.