|
Post by hi224 on Apr 17, 2019 6:35:33 GMT
Very top notch stuff actually.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 17, 2019 14:24:19 GMT
How’s it compared to say, Argo?
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 17, 2019 17:41:59 GMT
How’s it compared to say, Argo? I preferred this as it actually felt like a horror film within a real life setting.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 17, 2019 20:23:43 GMT
awesome, thanks for reporting on it, looking forward to seeing it soon.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 21, 2019 8:56:35 GMT
How’s it compared to say, Argo? Hotel Mumbai is almost nothing like Argo. First, the styles, tones, and genres of the two films are quite different. Yes, Argo is certainly taut and suspenseful, but it is also quite humorous. Indeed, the film succeeds largely because of how it braids existential suspense with comedy, without becoming jarring or disruptive. Conversely, aside from one motif early in the movie, there is nothing comedic about Hotel Mumbai, nor should there be. Second, whereas director Ben Affleck largely shot Argo in closeups, Hotel Mumbai is an impressive and spectacular film visually and technically. Its editing, use of montage, long shots, and use of space within the frame are all outstanding. One shot late in the movie, as the camera quickly tracks or pans across a paratrooper crouching and moving behind a railing, backlit by the rising sun, strikes me as an absolute classic. Third, whereas I deemed Argo a "good" movie (highly suspenseful and enjoyable, yet not exactly nuanced or visually attractive), I consider Hotel Mumbai a genuinely "great" film. As a disaster movie, it is better than anything that Hollywood perennially produces—lean and taut and real-seeming, without any false notes or gimmicks or misplaced jocularity. And then, as Hotel Mumbai proceeds, it subtly—without exposition or pandering to the audience—adds profound layers of nuance and irony. The film shows the terrorists to be monstrous yet all too human and naive. It speaks to the dangers of stereotyping Muslims, yet without ever feeling like a public service announcement. And it excels at capturing human responses to terror. Australian director Anthony Maras observes matters coolly yet without detachment, while Dev Patel delivers perhaps his best performance to date. I have seen him in a few other movies ( The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, The Man Who Knew Infinity, Lion), but he is better here, appearing to act with greater tension and conviction in a role that he really seems to relate to and understand. For awhile, I thought that Hotel Mumbai constituted a "good" movie, yet nothing especially remarkable. But as the film adds nuance and accumulates so many intense moments and scenes, its profundity and greatness become apparent. And the climactic scene between one of the terrorists and a female victim played by Nazanin Boniadi is both intellectually fascinating and viscerally searing. One could consider the movie tragic or inspirational, yet both of those adjectives feel too convenient or simplistic for a film that easily captures the gory spectacle and human grace created by those terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Apr 23, 2019 19:40:06 GMT
I saw it yesterday. I thought it was very well done and that it managed to create an unbelievable level of tension. I am not sure what to think of the fact that so much of the focus of the film is on the foreign victims, though. I understand WHY this was done – it is an international movie made for international audiences and it helps having at least one very recognisable face on the cast, and I know that there really were many foreign victims and that the foreign characters weren’t shoehorned into the story just to make it more relatable to American audiences – but it still feels wrong somehow.
I am also not sure that this movie needed to be made, but that’s another discussion.
|
|