Posts by redowl90

I actually posted this in another thread, but I might as well put it here too: it’s a good movie, but nothing more than that. To me, History of Violence was much, much better.

I wasn't a huge fan of Viggo, and Naomi was nothing special... Vincent was decent enough, though as the user above mentioned—he's the standout because his character carries most of the weight. Armin Stahl was also pretty convincing playing that ruthless Russian mob boss.

The plot felt a little diluted in certain spots. While I get that Christina's baby is the core of the story, I can't help but feel that they could have done something incredible if they had focused more on the Russian mafia angle (which we've seen a lot of in movies lately), rather than just sticking to a solid idea. It never really gets to the heart of the matter, which was frustrating for me.

Still, despite all that, it's essential viewing.

Bradley Ramirez5 said:The best parts of the movie were definitely when they said "razvaliti Halid" and "nemati oni pojam".

Totally agree! 👍

I finally have enough time today to pull my final list together, especially since I spent the last two weeks catching up on a few more films that absolutely earned their spot in my top 10 for the year.

My definitive list for 2007 looks like this:

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Armin
3. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
4. Notes on a Scandal
5. When The Levees Broke: A Requiem In Four Acts
6. Atonement
7. Michael Clayton
8. The Kingdom
9. American Gangster
10. The Banishment

Henry Bennett53 said:I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet (I don't think it's even hit theaters here in the States), but since it's a P. T. Anderson film and given the brilliant reviews, I have no doubt it's a masterpiece.
I haven't caught anything by Spike Lee or Todd Haynes' I'm Not There either.
I'm pretty sure it'll all be great.

Go rent a Spike Lee film from the first video store you find! Seriously, right now! That's what real documentary filmmaking looks like, unlike that propaganda pieces signed by Moore (though I did enjoy Sicko and think it's his best work so far).

There Will Be Blood doesn't arrive in American theaters until February (it can't be shown anywhere before Berlin), but honestly, this might be the best thing I've seen not just this year, but in years. It's truly excellent in every sense. Even with a few plot holes in the middle, it still feels like the movie of the year because the direction is just incredible. Plus, Daniel Day-Lewis was absolutely god-tier—he earned that Oscar before anyone else.

As for I'm Not There, I'm not sure if it'll even get a theatrical release here, but I'm certain it'll show up at the local video rental spots, so definitely check it out when you can. Todd Haynes didn't disappoint after the amazing Far from Heaven, and Cate Blanchett is 🙏. She deserves a nomination through and through.

By the way, you haven't been around here long... or am I misremembering?

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Armin
3. Notes on a Scandal
4. When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts
5. Michael Clayton
6. The Kingdom
7. Zodiac
8. Letters From Iwo Jima
9. I'm Not There
10. The Banishment

George Alvarez3 said:Ha. Based on what?

I hope you realize that your post from about two hours ago actually sent me back to rewatch the movie. My first time since seeing it in theaters.

And honestly, the second viewing was much easier to swallow. Probably because I went in fully prepared for the nonsense. Because that’s all this movie really is—one big, giant load of nonsense. I get why you loved it, though; there's definitely something there. But for me, the whole foundation of the story—these water creatures, the ships, the guilds, the guardians—it just feels totally ridiculous. It’s hard to buy into. It sits completely outside the realm of any believable fairy tale. Sure, it has some style, but *Signs* and *The Village* have style too, and they still don't hold a candle to *The Sixth Sense* or *Unbreakable*.

Don't get me wrong, Shyamalan is a great director. But I think he seriously needs to consider finding a new screenwriter, because it's pretty obvious his current direction isn't working anymore. Even so, I'm already hyped for his next one: *The Happening*. That’s the thing about M. Night—he’s brilliant at building anticipation. No matter how bad his last film was (and in my opinion, it was easily the worst of his career so far), people are still on the edge of their seats waiting for his next project.

There are really only two things worth saving in *Lady in the Water*: 1) the fact that Shyamalan himself plays the character who writes the book—the legendary novel that shapes an American child's entire future, and 2) the supporting role of the film critic, specifically that line from Jeffrey Wright: "Who are we to presume to know the intentions of others?"

@George Alvarez3 - really nice post. Truly. It’s just a shame that the movie you're talking about remains total garbage, regardless of how well you wrote this.

Larry Martin11 said:...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. 🙂

😍
😍
😍
Philip Seymour Hoffman
😍
😍
😍

David Price5 said:What about Tigerland (2000) and Phone Booth (2002)?

Honestly, Phone Booth is trash. The only redeeming qualities are Kiefer Sutherland and the fact that he doesn't get caught at the end.

I've always felt Tigerland was overrated.

And just to be clear: Joel Schumacher is a TERRIBLE director. Really. He's the guy who completely ruined Batman. I can't forgive him for that, even if he happens to make the best movie ever conceived.

Larry Martin11 said:...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 😳

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).

John Peterson3 said:Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell

A total rogue...

Unlike Daredevil, which has already become an absolute timeless classic!

😂

Carol Lewis said:To be different... honestly, that one sits right up there with my top three of his best, especially since you've got Nicolas Cage playing exactly what he does better than anyone else—that absolute disaster of a human being... though I can't help but feel like Scorsese brings just a little bit more to the table...
I was just sitting here thinking about how much certain films capture a specific kind of lightning in a bottle, and it got me wondering about *The Aviator*... you know, that sweeping, grand feeling of ambition and madness all rolled into one... it makes you think about how we perceive those larger-than-life figures in American history, the ones who seem to fly much higher than the rest of us, even if they eventually lose their grip on the ground... I wonder if anyone else feels that same pull when watching those period pieces, where the scale of everything feels so massive yet so deeply personal at the same time... maybe it's just me, but there’s something about that era of American innovation that stays with you long after the credits roll...

It was Band before Aviator.

Oh, and one more thing: Warriors is actually a pretty terrible movie.

velvetcrane57 said:You're just not a Kubrick fan, that's all.......
There are plenty of other films with an atmosphere similar to Eyes Wide Shut... Not to mention, if you haven't seen Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket or Paths Of Glory, those are, in my view, his best works alongside Clockwork Orange.
And once again... As someone who considers themselves a huge Kubrick enthusiast, I am telling you, you simply cannot deny that Eyes Wide Shut is his worst film—his absolute decline. I first read that online and couldn't believe he was capable of making a bad movie, but once I actually watched it, I realized everything they said was true. And frankly, the man didn't get the benefit of a graceful pivot like Hitchcock did with Frenzy. I mention him because he and Kubrick are my two favorite directors... Sadly, neither of them are with us anymore.😢

BTW: If anyone is interested, feel free to reach out and grab this phenomenal Kubrick collection... It just hit the shelves here in the States.....😁

🤔
Man, I've really been playing myself for years. Honestly, I might as well just spend my time reading every single review and comment section online for every movie I haven't seen yet—especially the ones I'm actually interested in. That way I can just pre-form an opinion, and watching them won't even matter anymore.
You're not wrong!

Jerry Martin19 said:Out of the Dead feels like a total outlier in the Scorsesean catalog to me. It’s this super neurotic, heavy depression drama that just hits differently than his usual style. I don't know about you guys, but this isn't the Scorsese I grew up watching. Thoughts?

btw, great flick 😍

A Final Kristoff-esque Temptation?

wearytinker8 said:"The Departed" — basically the first time Martin Scorsese actually leaned into a complex plot.
Marty, man...

😕

wearytinker8 said:Then there's "War of the Worlds" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" following right behind...

So, here is our all-time top 5:
1. Spider-Man
2. War of the Worlds
3. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
4. Citizen Kane
5. The Godfather

Larry Martin11 said:@redowl90
...I mean, I kind of agree—each one follows its own logic, which is exactly why they’re so great. You never walk away feeling like Wes Anderson is just recycling himself😍...but then again, there’s always this sense of "grandeur" or complexity in them—that specific "overview" style he has that you just can't escape... and then, out of nowhere, he flips the script and makes something that isn't "big" or "complex" at all, but instead carries this surprising lightness, and don't even get me started on the camera work😵...

...I don't know... for me, it felt like a total leap into the unknown. I remember reading that Tykwer-esque critique of it (good grief, where did I hide the link for that? 😵) and thinking, okay, but is this really Anderson? Turns out, it actually was😍.

🙂

Just wait until you see There Will Be Blood... 😍
Man, I'm probably being a broken record by bringing up that movie again. 🙂

velvetcrane57 said:Frankly, if someone fails to grasp the sheer technical brilliance of *Spider-Man*—and I am not referring to the character itself, but rather the sophisticated manner in which the film is directed—then they really have no business weighing in on cinematic discourse at all.

I guess for you, the pinnacle of cinematic art is that scene near the end where the Green Goblin forces Spider-Man to choose between saving a woman or a full school bus of kids.

👎

Larry Martin11 said:...I seriously can't believe this! I literally just wrote about how that same film is totally uncharacteristic for Wes Anderson—I mean, he usually directs these complex, almost "epic" movies (not in a bad way, obviously, but still), whereas this is just a breezy, sweet, "modernly old-fashioned" comedy 😍—but then I deleted the whole post thinking, whatever, it doesn't matter...

...good grief 😵 😍

🙂

Personally, I feel like all of Wes Anderson's films belong to different genres. Sure, they’re technically all dramas, but the context changes so much it’s like they weren't even made by the same person.
But I mean that in the most positive way possible. 👍