David Richardson67 said:I know everyone has their own taste, but you guys have gotta be kidding me, right?!
Look, this isn't even about personal preference. The movie actually nailed everything on that list... unlike some other films out there that can't even get the basic technical stuff right!
So, unlike some other attempts at American indie cinema, this one doesn't exactly pull at your heartstrings while you're watching it. It’s not like anyone is claiming this is some groundbreaking masterpiece or some next-level cinematic achievement...
The acting is, I guess, decent enough? And there are definitely moments where you see yourself in the characters. There are some cute little scenes too, and like someone else mentioned, it’s a perfectly fine movie to throw on a Sunday afternoon... As far as meeting its own goals goes, it does exactly what it set out to do.
It’s totally possible the documentary kind of 'spoiled' the plot for me, so that typical Hollywood script didn't quite hit the spot.
Don't get me wrong, the cinematography is stunning, and during that main wire scene, the tension was so high I was actually gripping my seat wanting to grab onto something myself! But still, once you already know the story, that heavy-handed romanticizing of Philippe Petit's obsession with those high-wire stunts feels a bit much... plus, they really oversimplified how he actually pulled that whole crew together for the stunt.
But hey, I guess that’s what you expect from a production like this, so all in all, it's not a huge dealbreaker. Gordon-Levitt does a great job making the lead feel real, and the supporting cast just rounds out the whole vibe perfectly. Huge shoutout to Ben Kingsley, though—he absolutely steals every scene he's in as a powerhouse guest star (but hey, he's vital to the ending regardless!).
Solid movie, Zemeckis definitely knows his stuff. I maybe would've preferred if it leaned more into the style of Man on Wire, but honestly, maybe I've just been spoiled by the documentary too much...
It’s so typical of Cohen, you know? Just totally unpredictable, packed with these quirky characters and all those little subplots... I loved how they subtly poked fun at those old-school ideological types that used to run the show during Hollywood's golden age, plus all the nonsense involved in movie production back then.
Now, I’m not usually a huge fan of Clooney, but honestly, he really nails these roles where he plays notorious gamblers and eccentrics. It suits him! I think that covers just about everything else—the casting is spot on, and the pacing feels really balanced throughout the story.
On one hand, I can see why this didn't exactly blow up at the box office, but I have a feeling that in a few years, everyone is going to be talking about how this movie was totally underrated...
Just finished watching it yesterday. Honestly, there were way too many good things about it, so I’ll start with the negatives since they’re fewer...
The whole premise is built on this ideological fight against Western consumerist and capitalist society, where a parent tries to shield his kids from all those influences. But even that lifestyle has its downsides, which the movie shows—though maybe not as deeply as it probably should have...
On one hand, they’re portrayed as these smarter, better people building a community in tune with the wild and nature, while the average American family is shown as just stereotypically clueless. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't shoving it right down your throat! Like that scene where he sends his youngest to recite a critique by heart just to shame the city kids who go to public schools, unlike his own kids who are homeschooled under this super strict wilderness training regime. The problem is, those lines clearly sound like memorized scripts... they don't come out naturally as spontaneous or rational thoughts from actual children.
Even though I lean more towards his ideology and really sympathize with Captain Fantastic, the message is presented as a two-way street—meaning neither the typical Western lifestyle nor his extreme version of isolation is "right." Still, I wish they had gone deeper in certain parts; instead, the whole thing stays kind of on the surface, a bit naive, and follows a pretty predictable path...
But overall, it was a super satisfying movie with stellar acting and some really strong points and messages. It has those typical indie-film vibes here and there, but not enough to be annoying. I actually love the concept of a family learning survival and togetherness away from civilization, celebrating Chomsky and anti-Western sentiment. And the scenes outside that bubble? They’re fun, showing those classic, messy human situations and reactions...
The only thing is, the core theme driving the story should have hit harder, but the solutions offered felt a little thin. Their mother's death is definitely the most powerful moment, and it should have highlighted the massive gap between the two ways of life. Instead, it mostly just reveals resentment and a huge pile of confused emotions on both sides—from the mother's side and from Ben and his kids.
That's when Ben finally realizes that at some point, you just have to let your kids develop within society so they can decide for themselves whether they want to be part of that world or not...
It's kind of similar to Dogtooth, where the idea of protecting children from the influence of Western civilization turns out to be both disastrous and totally impossible from the jump. Maybe everyone should get back to their roots and merge with nature, but we should probably do it gradually instead of just cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world entirely...
It’s such a shame because the core concept and the backstory are actually top-tier material...
But you've got these stereotypical villains, dialogue that feels totally goofy, characters that just don't land, and a plot that feels super thin. Still, there are a few solid scenes in there, and the acting is decent enough...
He used to head out there every summer for years, but this time he stayed much longer into the fall—right when the grizzly man starts prepping for hibernation and gets seriously cranky. He knew the risks, but he decided to go for it anyway...
Of course, Werner Herzog framed it his way, diving into those deep themes about the bond between humans and the wild. It really highlights how modern folks claim they want to ditch society and reconnect with nature, yet we’re totally unprepared for the raw, brutal reality that comes with it.
And honestly? I don't think the actual footage was ever released, and it definitely wasn't shown in the movie (you just see Herzog listening to it and giving his take afterward). All that stuff you see online is just fiction, someone's fan project or something... ☕
There’s just way too much dead air in the dialogue. Everything feels cold, surface-level, and honestly? Kind of hard to buy. The visuals look great, sure, but the whole thing was such a slog to get through ☕
I’m starting to worry that Nicolas Winding Refn hit his peak with Charles Bronson, which is a total masterpiece compared to this. Don't get me wrong, Drive was good, but still...
Is it just me, or does Bradley almost always play these guys who used to be somebody, but they've hit rock bottom and spend the whole movie trying to claw their way back to the top? I mean, looking at his roles in Silver Linings Playbook, Limitless, and now even Burnt... it's definitely a pattern. Okay, maybe The Hangover doesn't totally fit that mold, though there are definitely some vibes there too, just like in a few of his other parts.
Burnt is actually a pretty fun watch, just a solid, easygoing flick if you want to chill out. It was honestly exactly what I needed to unwind after bingeing those intense sci-fi thrillers... ☕
Jack Murphy5 said:Where's he claiming that? Maybe he was just messing around. I mean, you can totally tell it's fake just by looking at it from an airplane view! 😉
And then he goes, "It's odd that you think it's a prosthetic. That's Mark Wahlberg's penis. I'm not sure where all this prosthetic talk comes from."
Which basically means if my source isn't 100% right, Anderson was probably just trolling everyone... 😬
Hunt for The Wilderpeople is easily one of the best out there, but honestly, it makes sense why they don't throw it around as much in theaters... I mean, it's a local gem from New Zealand, right? Even though the director already made a name for himself with that hilarious mockumentary "What We Do in the Shadows," this story is just on a whole different level. It's way better...
Paul Thomas Anderson swears it’s his, but Warburg is out here saying it isn't. Who am I supposed to believe here?
I mean, I'm a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson... his stuff is just so deep and honestly pretty provocative sometimes. You can tell he pours everything into every single frame. It really shows...
Caught this at the AMC Theatres tonight. Honestly, I had zero clue what I was getting into, so my expectations were pretty much non-existent. Based on the poster, I figured it’d be something dark and heavy, but maybe with a hopeful, uplifting message at the end.
And man, they nailed it. For a second there at the very start, I actually thought I was just watching another one of those kids' movies that rely way too much on CGI and flashy effects...
But then the movie starts moving... and wow, just wow. It hits you hard. The mix of mysticism and those gorgeous animations clashing with reality—plus the way they tell such a tragic story through this warm, human lens—it's incredible. My only gripe is that opening bit that almost sent me down the wrong path, but everything else? Simply beautiful.
Sure, it hits some of those typical tropes you see in movies like this, but I think it totally works because the core message is so powerful. The whole concept is just really well put together.
The only thing is, there were moments where I was just sitting there waiting for Liam Neeson to have the monster shout, "I don't know who you are, but I will find you and kill you" 😬
Al Pacino’s role in The Godfather was actually pretty controversial at first. People were questioning if he was even the right fit, especially since there were so many other established actors out there. Back then, Pacino was just this young, relatively unknown guy, and the production crew was totally against it initially... But what’s really cool—and Pacino himself has talked about this—is how he develops the character's intensity throughout the movie. It starts off subtle, almost unnoticeable, but as the story unfolds and he has to step up into his father's shoes, he transforms into that iconic version of Michael we all know and love.
In the sequel, though, we see the whole thing flipped: we get this parallel look at Vito’s early days alongside Michael, who's already the big boss. And we all know De Niro snagged an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in that one. Honestly, there's zero debate there.
But if you connect those two dots—that weird little switch in perspective—it makes you wonder if Michael in the first film was actually more of a supporting player than the lead.
hollowsailor19 said:Peter Finch on the Network is definitely just a supporting role. I mean, that opening scene... his legendary performance right at the start... it's everything... I'm mad as Hell! It just serves to keep the plot moving. You know, the whole movie is really about viewership and how much that actually matters in the grand scheme of things... For me, Faye Dunaway and William Holden totally steal the show as the leads.
Honestly, if you ask me, he’s the main guy too. Sure, he's technically the subject through whom we see all that media manipulation unfolding under those specific circumstances... but his role is totally central to the movie. He's at the heart of it all!
Of course, that was actually the first Oscar ever given out posthumously, so that definitely plays a part in things... but it really serves to flesh out all the other characters too. Even that tiny little cameo from Ned Beatty—he actually snagged an Oscar nomination himself just for that one speech, you know? That line where he goes, "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale"... so intense!
Oh, and just one more thing for my buddy regarding Django Unchained... Foxx and Waltz are actually co-leads. They both share the heavy lifting in those main roles. We're really looking at the story through two equal perspectives...
I'm with you there. But would an Oscar even be considered a "fair" win if the lead role was basically destined for Daniel Day-Lewis anyway...? 🙂
Caught that movie yesterday, and honestly? It’s just pure fun. It definitely leans into those trashy vibes, but if you’re into over-the-top violence and a massive pile of high-octane shots, you'll have a blast. My only gripe is that the action is relentless—there’s zero breathing room! The editing cuts right when you finally feel like you can catch your breath...
Plus, the main guy is just flying from one crazy situation to the next without stopping... you really need a moment to process everything after a while 😬
But hey, the story is actually pretty clever and has some super innovative touches... overall, I'd give it a thumbs up!
Jessica Morris6, honestly, that’s hardly a litmus test for someone's mental state... 😬
Okay, jokes aside. I totally get that this is just typical media coverage designed to make someone look toxic to the public. My reaction was mostly just sarcasm... It's their bread and butter, right? How else are they going to hunt for clicks when they can't find anything actually substantive or intelligent regarding the topic?
I mean, imagine if the guy were a PETA member who openly championed LGBT rights instead... they'd be treating him like a saint under these exact same circumstances! ☕
But hey, let's not get bogged down in ideology—unless we're talking about pirate code... 🙂