|
Post by kevin on Apr 20, 2017 12:14:45 GMT
Hi everyone, I'll use this thread to post my own short reviews on movies (and perhaps TV shows as well). Feel free to give your own opinion on a movie I review. Maybe other people can also start threads in this subboard where they write there own reviews. It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on movies. I'll start with The Jungle Book. The Jungle Book (2016) **** out of 5 (8 out of 10)
Remakes of classic movies and TV shows don't always go well (like Clash of the Titans) and some can even be considered an insult towards the original work. Luckily, this is absolutely not the case with The Jungle Book. This might even be one of the few cases where the remake or, to be more specific, live-action adaptation is actually better than the original movie (1967). The Jungle Book consists of a beautiful story with powerful characters. This is a remarkable feat, considering most of the characters are not humans. Neel Sethi is great as Mowgli and is definitely one of the best recent child actors. The voice performances, from Bill Murray for example, are top-notch. The movie is both relaxing and intense. Quite possibly the most incredible feat of the movie are its special effects. Those effects are undoubtably breathtaking. Even in a year with great effects from Doctor Strange, I immediately knew this movie would be a lock for the Academy Award for best visual effects. The creatures are one of the most impressive CGI-animals I've ever seen. Sometimes, it even looked like I was watching a documentary from National Geographic. This all contributes to the credibility of the movie and also improved my viewing experience. The Jungle Book isn't unique or special enough to be considered a revolutionary movie and some scenes seem unnecessary and hurt the movie storywise. It may not be as good or emotional als The Lion King, but don't let that stop you from watching The Jungle Book: it's still one of the most exciting movies of 2016. What's your opinion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 20:06:07 GMT
Agree with everything you said. I to gave Jungle Book a 8/10. Great film. Keep em' reviews coming!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 22, 2017 10:56:49 GMT
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)***** out of 5 (10/10)
"What a day! What a lovely day!"
We've had to endure a lot of bad action movies during the last 20 years or so: the many terrible Transformers sequels and movies like Skyline, Speed 2, Fantastic Four, Wrath of the Titans, Battle of Los Angeles, Ghost Rider, Catwoman, The Time Machine etc. I could go on and on. They're all failed action movies. Many other action movies are just okay. They're not bad, but they're forgettable and all feel the same. Of course there have still been good action movies in the last 5 years, like Edge of Tomorrow, Mission Impossible 4 and 5, The Raid, but I couldn't help but wonder if the action genre was slowly going extinct. Luckiliy, 2015 brought some good news: action movies are far from extinct. For the first time since 2008's The Dark Knight, we have a new instant classic within the action genre. The 71-year old George Miller has returned to show everyone how it's done. Mad Max: Fury Road isn't just the best movie of 2015, it's one of the best action movies of the 21st century. Fury Road can be compared to one of those insane rollercoaster rides where you're in a state of constant excitement and suspense. People aren't overexaggerating when they call this a 2-hour long action scene. Of course there are some slow parts during the movie, but for the most part it's a spectacle of destruction and explosions: and what a spectacle it is. I don't know if I'll ever be able to watch action movies again without feeling a bit disappointed, knowing that it will probably not even come close to the action in Fury Road. This movie has the perfect combination of CGI and practical effects. Every single special effect is breathtaking and if that's the case, I really don't care if it's CGI or practical. When I first saw Fury Road, I was so happy that there wasn't any shaky cam to be found. Many action movies use shaky cam to hide the fact that the stunts or action scenes aren't as incredible as they want to make them seem. That's not the case with Fury Road. There are beautiful wide shots in this movie and you can see the action in all its glory. Take notes Michael Bay, this is how you shoot action. Miller combined the action with an epic soundtrack. The soundtrack is incredible and reinforces every moment in the movie. I had to look up one song afterwards, because it's so amazing: "Dies irae, Libera me", originally by Verdi ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPhdOuKsZIE). I also have to talk about the color grading in this movie. The colors in this movie are so bright and diverse that it gives off an 'out of this world'/fantasy vibe. It's just such a beautiful movie to look at. The same goes for the explosions. I've never seen explosions so red and bright as in this movie. It's completely over the top, but that's the entire point. George Miller has made one of the craziest worlds I've ever seen, but it works in every single way. All the characters are amazing, but I have to give shout-outs to a few actors. First and foremost, Charlize Theron is perfect and absolutely bad-ass as Furiosa and cements herself as a iconic action hero. Nicolas Hoult is great as Nux and Tom Hardy is also very good as Max. Hugh Keays-Byrne also plays an amazing villain as Immortan Joe. I've now talked about this movie in general, but it's the little details that make this movie so good: the drums & the guitar guy, the flare before the bullet farmer's eyes, the bad guys casually waiting for news when the war rig goes back to the citadel etc. After all this time, I still haven't even said a single thing about the plot or the emotions in this movie. The plot isn't very complicated, but it doesn't need to be. It's a 2-hour car chase and that's totally fine. I've seen this movie many times and I've never gotten bored because the plot is 'too simple'. George Miller has, however, placed a lot of world-building in the background. It's not spelled out to you, but the mentions of Gas Town, Bullet Farm etc. show that Miller knows exactly how his world works. Not all answers about this world are given and this gives you the oppurtunity to fill the answers by yourself and to let your imagination run wild. The movie packs a real emotional punch as well. There's no exposition, but you get to know the characters by their actions and motivations. You really start to like the characters and this makes several scenes in the movie very powerful. Very impressive, considering the movie is 90% action and therefore has little room to really delve into emotional background stories and long conversations. This post is now already far longer than I wanted it to be and I could talk a lot longer about Fury Road, but I'm ending my review here. Fury Road is a return to form, not just for George Miller and Mad Max, but for action movies in general. If you haven't seen Fury Road yet, watch it as soon as possible. And if you have seen it, what is your opinion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 21:16:12 GMT
Agreed. Mad Max is the best action film in years. I think I've mentioned it on here before, but I compare it to action films such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, The Matrix etc... Can't wait for the sequel!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2017 9:17:25 GMT
Pan's Labyrinth (2006) ***** out of 5 (10 out of 10)
*Slight spoilers ahead*
I watched Pan's Labyrinth a while back and I still think about it and its story sometimes. Guillermo del Toro has made some great movies, but none of them, in my opinion, are as powerful as Pan's Labyrinth. First of all, the basic premise of the story is as good as it can be. Ofelia lives in a surreal world. Actually, she lives in 2 surreal worlds: a fascist dystopian Spain and dark and mature fantasy world. We don't spend a lot of time in the fantasy world, however. Before I watched Pan's Labyrinth I expected it to be kinda like Narnia where we start in the real world, but then go to the fantasy world where the rest of the story takes place. This is absolutely not the case with this movie. We spend most of our time in fascist Spain with some fantasy elements now and then. This makes it a unique experience and unlike any other in the fantasy genre.
I won't go into deep spoiler territory, but the way this movie is constructed is really beautiful. In a The Prestige-esque way we start with the ending and then see the entire story leading up to it. You think it would be difficult for del Toro to keep people entertained and engaged in a fantasy story when we already know the outcome, but believe me, Pan's Labyrinth will surprise you. The cast isn't made up of big movie stars, but almost all the performances are terrific. Ivana Baquero is great as Ofelia. The whole movie revolves around her so if she isn't good, the movie won't be as well. But there's no reason to worry, Ofelia is a great character and Ivana Baquero's acting in the climactic scenes elevates the movie to a higher level. Another person I'd like to mention is Alex Angula who is also very believable and tragic as the Doctor. Sergi López's character is good, but sometimes he feels a bit too much like an typical bad guy. Towards the end we luckily get a little more details about him and his life, but it feels like he could've been fleshed out better. It's the only noteworthy complaint I can think of, the others are just small nitpicks, but it doesn't detract from the experience in any way. That's because the movie isn't about Sergi's character, it's about Ofelia and her journey through two hellish worlds, the fantasy one and the one she lives in right now.
I have to warm you: if you think you're about to watch a regular dark fantasy movie that still resembles movies like Narnia or Harry Potter, you're going to be very mistaken. There are some very disturbing and violent scenes. It's R-rated and it definitely deserves its rating, possibly being the most mature fantasy movie I've seen. I also want to mention that this movie is also a lot more emotional than most (fantasy) movies. It revolves around you caring for the characters and responding to their mistakes and their consequences. I usually don't cry while watching movies, but I'll be honest and say I got a bit teary-eyed during the movies' conclusion. The way the music is used in these pivotal scenes makes those scenes way more intense and powerful.
Pan's Labyrinth is also very impressive on a technical level. The cinematography is amazing. Especially the 180 degrees flipped scene during the beginning and the ending is very clever. Del Toro used different color palettes in the scenes in Spain in comparison to the scenes in the fantasy world. The distinction is just one of the small details where you can see del Toro's clear vision when making this movie. And last but definitely not least, I have to talk about the terrifying creatures del Toro once again made for his movie. I don't think there's any other director at this moment who can create creatures and monsters the way del Toro does. Most of the creatures are made with practical effects and look completely convincing. I especially want to compliment everyone who worked on the 'Pale Man'. It's without a doubt one of the coolest and scariest movie creatures I've ever seen.
All in all Pan's Labyrinth is a beautiful work of art and the best del Toro movie I've seen. Let's hope his new movie 'The Shape of the Water' will be just as good as Pan's Labyrinth. I also made a YouTube video (in this post) where I also give my review of Pan's Labyrinth. In that review I graded the movie in various categories. There are pros and cons listed for each category and eventually I give my (weighted) average rating. Have you seen Pan's Labyrinth and, if you have, what is your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 24, 2017 16:00:09 GMT
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)***** out of 5 (10/10)
"What a day! What a lovely day!"
We've had to endure a lot of bad action movies during the last 20 years or so: the many terrible Transformers sequels and movies like Skyline, Speed 2, Fantastic Four, Wrath of the Titans, Battle of Los Angeles, Ghost Rider, Catwoman, The Time Machine etc. I could go on and on. They're all failed action movies. Many other action movies are just okay. They're not bad, but they're forgettable and all feel the same. Of course there have still been good action movies in the last 5 years, like Edge of Tomorrow, Mission Impossible 4 and 5, The Raid, but I couldn't help but wonder if the action genre was slowly going extinct. Luckiliy, 2015 brought some good news: action movies are far from extinct. For the first time since 2008's The Dark Knight, we have a new instant classic within the action genre. The 71-year old George Miller has returned to show everyone how it's done. Mad Max: Fury Road isn't just the best movie of 2015, it's one of the best action movies of the 21st century. Fury Road can be compared to one of those insane rollercoaster rides where you're in a state of constant excitement and suspense. People aren't overexaggerating when they call this a 2-hour long action scene. Of course there are some slow parts during the movie, but for the most part it's a spectacle of destruction and explosions: and what a spectacle it is. I don't know if I'll ever be able to watch action movies again without feeling a bit disappointed, knowing that it will probably not even come close to the action in Fury Road. This movie has the perfect combination of CGI and practical effects. Every single special effect is breathtaking and if that's the case, I really don't care if it's CGI or practical. When I first saw Fury Road, I was so happy that there wasn't any shaky cam to be found. Many action movies use shaky cam to hide the fact that the stunts or action scenes aren't as incredible as they want to make them seem. That's not the case with Fury Road. There are beautiful wide shots in this movie and you can see the action in all its glory. Take notes Michael Bay, this is how you shoot action. Miller combined the action with an epic soundtrack. The soundtrack is incredible and reinforces every moment in the movie. I had to look up one song afterwards, because it's so amazing: "Dies irae, Libera me", originally by Verdi ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPhdOuKsZIE). I also have to talk about the color grading in this movie. The colors in this movie are so bright and diverse that it gives off an 'out of this world'/fantasy vibe. It's just such a beautiful movie to look at. The same goes for the explosions. I've never seen explosions so red and bright as in this movie. It's completely over the top, but that's the entire point. George Miller has made one of the craziest worlds I've ever seen, but it works in every single way. All the characters are amazing, but I have to give shout-outs to a few actors. First and foremost, Charlize Theron is perfect and absolutely bad-ass as Furiosa and cements herself as a iconic action hero. Nicolas Hoult is great as Nux and Tom Hardy is also very good as Max. Hugh Keays-Byrne also plays an amazing villain as Immortan Joe. I've now talked about this movie in general, but it's the little details that make this movie so good: the drums & the guitar guy, the flare before the bullet farmer's eyes, the bad guys casually waiting for news when the war rig goes back to the citadel etc. After all this time, I still haven't even said a single thing about the plot or the emotions in this movie. The plot isn't very complicated, but it doesn't need to be. It's a 2-hour car chase and that's totally fine. I've seen this movie many times and I've never gotten bored because the plot is 'too simple'. George Miller has, however, placed a lot of world-building in the background. It's not spelled out to you, but the mentions of Gas Town, Bullet Farm etc. show that Miller knows exactly how his world works. Not all answers about this world are given and this gives you the oppurtunity to fill the answers by yourself and to let your imagination run wild. The movie packs a real emotional punch as well. There's no exposition, but you get to know the characters by their actions and motivations. You really start to like the characters and this makes several scenes in the movie very powerful. Very impressive, considering the movie is 90% action and therefore has little room to really delve into emotional background stories and long conversations. This post is now already far longer than I wanted it to be and I could talk a lot longer about Fury Road, but I'm ending my review here. Fury Road is a return to form, not just for George Miller and Mad Max, but for action movies in general. If you haven't seen Fury Road yet, watch it as soon as possible. And if you have seen it, what is your opinion? That is the genius of this movie.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 7, 2017 11:04:43 GMT
Here's a list of my 50 favorite movies. It only consists of movies I've seen (of course), but I narrowed it down to movies that I've seen and that I can still remember that well that I can place them in exactly the right place. This means that many movies, especially older ones that I watched longer ago, aren't on the list right now. These movies that aren't includded are for example Raiders of the Lost Ark, Alien & Aliens, The Godfather II, Casablanca, Jaws & Schinler's List. These are movies that would definitely make my top 50 (Alien is freaking masterpiece), but I'll have to rewatch them before I know exactly where to place them. So since I remember a lot of recent movies better than the older ones the list for now consists mostly of 21st century movies, but I'm trying to (re)watch more of the older ones. Therefore, the list is constantly changing (I actually shuffled my top 15 a bit today) and more and more 'older' movies are entering it lately.
01 / 2003 / The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 02 / 1994 / Pulp Fiction 03 / 2017 / Blade Runner 2049 04 / 2010 / Inception 05 / 2001 / Spirited Away 06 / 1980 / Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 07 / 1972 / The Godfather 08 / 2015 / Mad Max: Fury Road 09 / 2006 / Pan's Labyrinth 10 / 1968 / 2001: A Space Odyssey
11 / 2017 / Dunkirk 12 / 2008 / The Dark Knight 13 / 2014 / Whiplash 14 / 1992 / The Silence of the Lambs 15 / 2001 / The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 16 / 2014 / Boyhood 17 / 1994 / The Shawshank Redemption 18 / 2002 / The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 19 / 2014 / Interstellar 20 / 1977 / Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
21 / 2013 / Gravity 22 / 2001 / Amélie 23 / 2006 / Das Leben Der Anderen 24 / 2014 / The Babadook 25 / 2016 / Arrival 26 / 1985 / Back to the Future 27 / 2006 / Children of Men 28 / 2017 / Baby Driver 29 / 1982 / Blade Runner 30 / 2013 / Her
31 / 2008 / Wall-E 32 / 2011 / The Tree of Life 33 / 1980 / The Shining 34 / 2014 / The Grand Budapest Hotel 35 / 1993 / Jurassic Park 36 / 2009 / Avatar 37 / 2003 / Kill Bill: Vol. 1 38 / 2016 / La La Land 39 / 2014 / Snowpiercer 40 / 2011 / Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
41 / 2007 / No Country for Old Men 42 / 1952 / Singin' in the Rain 43 / 1982 / E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial 44 / 2004 / Kill Bill: Vol. 2 45 / 2012 / Django Unchained 46 / 2015 / Ex Machina 47 / 2013 / 12 Years a Slave 48 / 1985 / The Breakfast Club 49 / 1980 / Airplane! 50 / 1993 / Groundhog Day
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 7, 2017 16:21:28 GMT
01 / 2003 / The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 02 / 1994 / Pulp Fiction 03 / 2017 / Blade Runner 2049 That's some high praise for Blade Runner 2049. I can't wait to see it.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 7, 2017 17:51:16 GMT
SPOILER WARNING (PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE)Blade Runner 2049 (2017)***** out of 5 (10 out of 10) "Cells interlinked within cells interlinked, within one stem. And dreadfully distinct, Against the dark a tall white fountain played."
As you probably already know if you've been on the Blade Runner 2049 threads lately, I saw Blade Runner 2049 Thursday evening. I just have to write more about it, so that's why I'm writing this review right now. I'll be straight to the point: this isn't a movie for everyone. Some people will hate it, some people will find it too long and slow, some regular moviegoers will probably walk out of the theater expecting a pure action movie. And I think it's the pinnacle of modern filmmaking. The more I think about the better and it gets, every single scene is done with so much care and the story is so great that I can't stop thinking about it. I used to be confident that Christopher Nolan was the most competent blockbuster director working right now, but I'm now seriously doubting that. Because I'll be honest, I don't think even Nolan, the great filmmaker he is, could craft a movie as philosophically powerful and rich as Denis has done. Many people ask the question 'Where are the great filmmakers? Where is the next Kubrick, the next Hitchcock, the next Spielberg?'. The answer is Denis Villeneuve. Even though he's been making incredible movies for quite some time now, I hope 2049 combined with Arrival last year will give him more attention, because he deserves it so much. To be able to make 3 movies in 3 years (Sicario, Arrrival, 2049) in 3 consecutive years and have all 3 of them be amazing is almost unheard of in modern filmmaking as far as I know. And yes, 2049 is Denis' best one so far.
Let's start with the visuals, because those are stellar. The use of color is out-of-this-world and the way the water mixes with the orange lighting in the fight scene between Luv and K is an instant goosebumps initiator. The beautiful wide shots in this movie combined with close-ups of faces create a tone that's both epic and microscopic in scale and I can't believe they actually were able to pull it off that well. The special effects are also of the highest level. There isn't a lot of CG in this movie, but still it feels like there is. There is so much technolike backgrounds that you almost immediately think it's all very good CG, but upon a closer look at a few scenes you realise that they were actually able to make those scenes with mostly practical effects. Come on Academy, if you don't give Roger Deakins the oscar this year you are out of your minds. And the movie also makes a good case for a Visual Effects oscar. You could pause the movie at any moment and it would make for an amazing wallpaper.
But somewhere we all already expected the visuals to be phenomenal, the real question is 'How is the story?'. It's almost perfect. I expect you to have seen this movie before reading this review and some heavy spoilers will follow so watch out if you haven't seen it. I have placed the following spoiler part in spoiler brackets, but I don't know if it'll work. First of all the idea of our character being a replicant is a great way to start the movie. Unlike the first Blade Runner there's no ambiguity this time, K is stated to be a replicant. This resulted in a different perspective moviewise than I expected going into it. 2049 also starts of on a high with the scene between Batista and Gosling. There is no long set-up, we immediately get to the story. One of my worries was that there was no possibility for a very interesting plot after the events of the first film, but the idea of a replicant baby is so simple and so brilliant at the same time. It reminds me a bit of the world from Children of Men in the sense that everything eventually revolves around birth and the miracle of life. Now I'm at it, the world of 2049 feels real, as real as movie worlds can get, and builds upon the beautiful atmosphere and sets from the original film. I won't go through the entire plot right now, but what I want to say is that it felt like I was watching a 'Godfather or Shawshank Redemption'-like life story. The movie was 3 hours long, but afterwards it felt like I was in that world for 3 years and I mean that as a good thing. You are completely immersed in this world and you forget about everything around you. I've heard some people talk about the length of the movie and that some scenes were boring, but the length of the movie is one of my favorite parts about it. I couldn't think of a single scene that should've been cut. The goal of the movie was, I think, to completely immersive people in this world and that worked completely. I was actually wishing that some parts of the movie were even longer, I didn't want to leave this world. Even though it would probably hurt the movie, I wouldn't mind if the movie was even an hour longer. But then again I love long movies so I can understand that other people may have a problem with the 2h 43m running time.
2049 comes full circle at the end and ties everything to gather so beautifully that it still gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. Just like Arrival, it makes you look different at the entire part of the movie that came before it. So in the movie it is stated that K is a replicant, then he thinks he isn't a traditional replicant and that he is the secret replicant baby only to then find out he's not the baby after all and that he isn't 'special'. If I phrase it like that it seems like a nonsensical plot that doesn't go anywhere and maybe some people actually think it is stupid. But I disagree with that, this movie is about the search for a soul and questions what is means to be alive and what is means to love. Because even if he turns out to be a regular replicant in the end, I think K is the most human character in the movie. 2049 blurs the line between real and artificial perfectly.
The acting is phenomenal across the board, but I have to give a shout-out to Harrison Ford who delivers an oscar-worthy performance in the room with Wallace. Leto himself was also very good. He's an actor that shines in a well-directed movie like this one, but fails in a less well-directed movie like Suicide Squad. Ryan Gosling was our main character for the most part so Ryan Gosling was very important and luckily he nailed it. He conveys emotions very well and, even though there's a lot of competition this year, I think there's a good chance that Gosling will also be taking several awards home this year. Then there's Silvia Hoeks who delivers an awesome performance as Luv. She's one of the main 'villains' in the movie, but I wouldn't go as far as say she's evil. She's a replicant designed to obey Wallace, but you can see that she questions his actions. Still she executes his order like a badass. The juxtaposition of those two inner feelings is brought to the screen beautifully by Sylvia Hoeks. She deserves to be a Hollywood star. Just like in for example Game of Thrones, all the characters are layered. There is no good and evil, only people trying to do what they think is right. The other actors were also great, Ana de Armas was great especially in the more emotional scenes, Robin Wright is great as usual and Mackenzie Davis & Lennie James also play their roles very well.
Many movies work towards that one scene and when you're watching it you know you're watching the scene that is supposed to be the best one of the movie. This isn't the case with 2049, since almost every scene feels like that one scene. The shared body sex scene between K and Joi shows the extreme ambition in this movie and, even though this specific theme has been explored earlier in for example 'Her', 'Blade Runner 2049' does it with even more elegance and emotional impact. The scene where K finds the wooden horse, the final scene with Joi and K, the scene between Luv and Lieutenant Joshi, the conversation between Wallace and Deckard, the conversations between K and Deckard, almost every scene is hauntig and instantly memorable. Some scenes border on the absurd and remind me of Snowpiercer, like the baseline tests of K. Those 2 scenes work so well, there's something about ""Cells interlinked within cells interlinked/Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct/Against the dark, a tall white fountain played." that just works so well. Every scene ties into every other scene as this 'cells interlinked' scene is tied with the beehive scene is Vegas where there are literally interlinked cells. 2049 doesn't have many action scenes, but the few action scenes are arguably the best moments of the entire movie. The fight between Deckard and K in the Vegas hotel and the one between Luv and K are two of the best action sequences ever made, seriously on Fury Road level.
If there are any negatives about this movie it is that the scene with the replicant rebels hints at a possible sequel and while I wouldn't be against a sequel if it has the same quality as this one, I don't think I want Blade Runner to get the franchise treatment and to get a new Blade Runner movie every 2 years or so. But besides that minor thing that didn't detract from the movies' quality I can't think of anything wrong with this movie.
So in conclusion, is 2049 the best sequel ever made? There's also Return of the King, Empire Strikes Back, Fury Road and many other masterful sequels, but 2049 is definitely one of the best ones out there. It is at least by far the best movie of the year. It might be the hype talking, but right now I think 2049 is the sci-fi movie of the decade, maybe even of the century. The vision of Denis is a miracle to behold. I don't care what it'll be about, I'm going to watch the next Villeneuve movie in theaters as well, this man is a genius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 1:16:07 GMT
It's really nice to see someone appreciating BR2049 for the masterpiece that is was (#3 spot of all time is quite an impressive score). There's way too many people on here complaining about the film's length and pacing and describing it as "boring".
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Aug 4, 2019 16:44:11 GMT
Misommar (2019) **** out of 5 (8/10)Dir. Ari Aster
That's it, I'm never going to Sweden. But seriously, what up with Ari Aster? How can someone even think of these gruesome stories? I know a lot of these rituals actually happened a long time ago, but still. Let me start with my biggest plus about the movie: the technical aspects. In the technical aspects, it's pretty much a perfect movie, truly unbelievable. The cinematography is beautiful with a gorgeous color palette. But even more astonishing are the camera movements, which are so surreal and unique and really bring home the psychedelic themes of this movie. The editing is terrific: unconventional, but it never feels like it tries too hard. The sound design is also fantastic. All in all, these technical aspects reminded me a lot of Kubrick. Everything perfectly constructed, to the point where you'd be surprised if a scene took less than 20 takes. Florence Pugh is also excellent and delivers one of the stand-out performances of the year so far.
In general I think this is a great movie, but it is one with two sides. The first half of the movie was very strong with near-perfect pacing, suspense building and plot threads. Seriously a high 4.5/5, pretty much on par with his previous movie Hereditary. The second half, while still very good, lacks a bit in pacing and suspense, even though it's by far the most gruesome part of the movie. Maybe it would've been better for me if the second half was about 20 minutes shorter. Perhaps it's all a bit too much gore, so much that it lessens the impact of what you see. I'll also note that this movie wasn't 'scary' to me in the traditional sense, but I think this was Aster's intention. This wasn't meant to be a terrifying movie, but rather a highly disturbing drama/thriller about relations and trust with even some surprising dark comedy elements. Thinking about it, it's remarkable how similar yet diferent Hereditary and Midsommar are.
To get to my final issue, I think the set-up in the first 10 minutes of Midsommar never really gets the pay-off I expected or hoped Aster would give it, especially considering how detailed it is. This felt a bit weird, especially considering how perfect everything was tied together in Hereditary. Maybe this is on me and I just missed some of the clues (let me know if you can think of anything I missed) and I'll have to rewatch it to be sure. But those minor issues aside, this is a really good (and most likely very divisive) horror movie. When I walked out, I was stuck between a 3.5/5 and 4.0/5. But now, I'm quite comfortable at putting it at a 4.0/5. The direction is just so strong and the cinematography is incredible. Seriously, the scene where the camera turns upside down is something else. And the opening scene, I loved that so much. The beautiful landscapes and then the sudden cut to the almost minituare-like houses. One other thing that I thought of and that friends who watched it with me also noticed, is that Ari Aster has a certain editing technique, I'll call it 'the Aster montage'. It's when he gives us an image of something trully horrifying and then cuts away to something else, usually someone reacting to what's happening. Standard movie rules are that after a certain amount of time, you don't go back to the gruesome image and if you do it happens slowly and you see it coming. With Aster, he let's a lot of time pass on purpose so you think you're not gonne see it again and then he suddenly cuts back to the original image. It happened multiple times in Hereditary and again in Midsommar and I can't think of another movie or director that does this (frequently). After giving us perhaps the best directorial debut of the decade with Hereditary, Ari Aster shows he isn't a one hit wonder.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Aug 5, 2019 9:00:02 GMT
I just saw my top 50 from October 2017 in this thread. I completely forgot that I posted it here and it's so fun to look back at it almost 2 years later. A lot of things are still similar, but a lot has also changed. For example the rise of movies like Children of Men, Alien, The Shining & Schindler's List. This would be my current top 50, of course once again subject to change (especially since I need to rewatch a lot of them). I've mainly been catching up with more recent movies, so the list is still mostly made up of 21st century movies, but I'm planning to change that by watching more of the 20th century movies on my watchlist with 800+ movies.
01 / 2006 / Children of Men 02 / 2003 / The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 03 / 2017 / Blade Runner 2049 04 / 1980 / Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 05 / 2015 / Mad Max: Fury Road 06 / 1993 / Schindler's List 07 / 1968 / 2001: A Space Odyssey 08 / 2001 / The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 09 / 2001 / Spirited Away 10 / 1979 / Alien
11 / 2006 / Pan's Labyrinth 12 / 1994 / Pulp Fiction 13 / 2010 / Inception 14 / 1980 / The Shining 15 / 2014 / Boyhood 16 / 1972 / The Godfather 17 / 2018 / Hereditary 18 / 2014 / Whiplash 19 / 2011 / The Tree of Life 20 / 2013 / Inside Llewyn Davis
21 / 2013 / Gravity 22 / 1993 / Jurassic Park 23 / 2018 / Roma 24 / 2017 / Dunkirk 25 / 2014 / The Babadook 26 / 2018 / Annihilation 27 / 1977 / Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope 28 / 2013 / Under the Skin 29 / 1985 / Back to the Future 30 / 2002 / The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
31 / 2008 / Wall-E 32 / 2004 / Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 33 / 2015 / Sicario 34 / 1997 / Princess Mononoke 35 / 2008 / The Dark Knight 36 / 1986 / Aliens 37 / 2017 / A Ghost Story 38 / 2016 / Sing Street 39 / 2007 / Hot Fuzz 40 / 2007 / No Country for Old Men
41 / 2018 / The Favourite 42 / 1975 / Monty Python and the Holy Grail 43 / 2006 / Little Miss Sunshine 44 / 2018 / Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 45 / 2013 / Snowpiercer 46 / 2018 / Mission: Impossible - Fallout 47 / 2017 / Call Me By Your Name 48 / 1952 / Singin' in the Rain 49 / 2016 / Arrival 50 / 2014 / The Grand Budapest Hotel
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Aug 17, 2019 7:09:49 GMT
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ****1/2 out of 5 (9/10)A Tarantino movie is always an 'event' of sorts. Very few directors manage to become so famous and known for their movies' consistent quality that they become event directors: other examples are Christopher Nolan & Alfonso Cuarón. And with 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' Tarantino shows once again why he is one of those directors. 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is by far the least Tarantino-esque of all of his movies. With a few very notable exceptions, it's devoid of the over-the-top violence that's constantly present in his other recent movies like The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained. He also, iirc, limits his curse vocabulary this time and even leaves the n-word alone for once. I've seen some reviews say that it feels like one of the blandest Tarantino movies and that anyone could've directed this. But I strongly disagree with that. I'd even go as far to say that this movie ranks near the top in terms of Tarantino's best directed movies. If he really goes through with it, we're nearing the end of Tarantino's directorial output and it really feels like he's taking everything he has learned over the years and put it in this movie's direction. The perfect way this movie flows is nearly unprecedented and makes me believe that pretty much no one could've directed this movie other than the few people who have the directing skills Tarantino has. It never drags and 160 minutes feel like 100. This is probably also the filmmaker's least plot driven movie, even less so than Pulp Fiction. It's also the first movie he's made since his Cannes hit that really reminds me of Pulp Fiction. The wandering story with multiple plot lines that just sort of happens without saying anything to the audience about which parts of it are good and evil, all the way up to the point of Brad Pitt's character Cliff. I can see how some people might interpret this as a movie that promotes the topics of racism, misogyny and violence in general, but my personal thoughts directly after watching this movie is that it's more of Tarantino's general style to go one of two extremes in terms of depiction of controversial events and themes (especially when it comes to history). He either goes to the point of satire where all characters are blown up to caricatures, like in Inglourious Bastards. Or he likes to not comment at all and just let things unfold, both acts of kindness and gruesome deeds, like is the case in Pulp Ficion, The Hateful Eight and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. This is an important moment to note that you absolutely need to be aware of the Manson murders and Sharon Tate in order to understand what some parts of the movie are about. Without it, some of the themes in the movie won't have the 'right' effect on you. It would be similar to watching Inglourious Bastards without knowing anything about WW2 and then coming to the conclusion it's just an over-the-top shoot 'em up flick that only seems to glorify violence and war. I think I'll start to wrap up this review as I think this really is a movie that you need to see for yourself and that you need to form an opinion about without knowing other people's interpretations. In short, Tarantino is back at the top of his game, with phenomenal dialogue, fantastic acting and great editing (I loved the use of the sudden cuts). Pitt and DiCaprio are both great and Oscar worthy, but the star of the movie was Margot Robbie imo. She's not the character with the most screentime, but she steals every scene she's in. It's also the most sing-along Tarantino movie with track after track playing in Cliff's car. It's kinda like Pulp Fiction with a bit of Inglourious Bastards thrown in and if that sounds good then this is a must-watch for you. P.S.: this is how I'd rank Tarantino's filmography. I haven't seen Deathproof & Jackie Brown yet: 1. Pulp Fiction 2. Inglourious Bastards 3. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 4. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 5. Django Unchained 6. Reservoir Dogs 7/8. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 7/8. The Hateful Eight
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Aug 20, 2019 10:32:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jul 4, 2020 14:36:55 GMT
I have n't done this in quite a while, but I watched La La Land earlier today and wrote some of my thoughts down and wondered how other people feel about the movie, so here it is (and of course feel free to respond with your thoughts/opinion on the movie). Letterboxd link to the review = letterboxd.com/kevinwriter/film/la-la-land/1/. La La Land (2016)9/10This is the third time I've seen La La Land. The first time I saw it (which was at the cinema), I absolutely loved it. The second time I still liked it quite a bit, but wasn't as amazed by it anymore and since then I've never really given it another try. And now, after having watched it for a third time, I'm completely floored once again. It's quite interesting. Around the period I watched La La Land for a 2nd time my general mood/happiness was fairly high. Not to say that around the time when I saw it for the first time I felt horrible, but there was definitely a difference.
And now during my 3rd watch I'm again in that okay but not great mood. Don't worry, it's nothing bad or anything like that, but with the whole pandemic, not having seen friends and a large part of my family for months, in general not going outside as much, the uncertain future etc. (I guess pretty much everyone knows what I'm talking about), I haven't 100% been myself lately. It seems like La La Land works best (at least for me) when you're not at your happiest. It's a movie that helps you get back up and lifts your spirits. And considering the direction the story takes near the end of the movie, that's a conclusion that seems a bit remarkable to me. I think it shows how expertly Damien Chazelle has crafted La La Land, to the point where he can deliver both a heavy emotional blow with the ending, but at the same time still leave the viewer (or me at least) with a sense of joy and happiness. Kinda like that ridiculously cheesy facebook quote "Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened". In that sense it almost feels like the antithesis to Chazelle's previous movie, Whiplash, which made me happy for Andrew's underdog-like success during the movie, but left me with a feeling of sadness (for lack of a better word) afterwards. And in both cases Chazelle knocks it out of the park.
All in all, it basically comes down to the fact that La La Land is a beautifully written story with excellent direction. Where Whiplash is a claustrophobic and 'inwards', magnifying the stress that we percieve in life and the desire to achieve something, La La Land feels free and 'outwards'; a polished and outlandish fantasy story that will never become reality, but at least for 2 hours we can believe it is real.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 4, 2020 19:53:10 GMT
Tenet (2020) - 7/10
Link = letterboxd.com/kevinwriter/film/tenet/Tenet is Christopher Nolan's newest movie and probably the most Nolany Nolan movie to date, which has both positive but also its negative effects. The good thing is that it really feels like Nolan doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He just makes what he wants to make and if the public enjoys it that's fine, otherwise it's also fine. I'm sure he does want the audience to enjoy it, but I'm just describing how the movie feels not what or how Nolan thinks. Because of this, this is probably the movie where Nolan has the most (i.e. complete) creative freedom. But like f.e. Lucas before him, too much creative freedom can also result in a messier product. I think we may have finally reached the point where Nolan made a movie as complex as possible, just for the sake of being complex. The concept of forward/backward time is relatively easy, but Nolan just throws layer after layer after layer until it's difficult to near-impossible to figure out where everyone is and what everyone is doing in real time. It makes it a complex puzzle, but not because the actual mechanics are difficult, simply because he throws 20 puzzles at you at once. In that sense this movie is different from his previous puzzles like Interstellar, Inception, The Prestige and Memento and definitely less elegant. I think that's the movie's biggest flaw. In that sense it kinda feels like Game of Thrones season 7, which was still very fun to watch, but where it more felt like someone trying to imitate the previous Game of Thrones seasons by using spectacle instead of also adding the right dialogue. And in that sense Tenet feels like Nolan trying to make another Inception-esque puzzle, but without the intricate but graceful mechanics of that movie, instead relying on adding 10x as many layers until it feels similar. And that might sound quite negative, especially for this rating, and I think that for some people that will be the end of the story. Most of the characters, while well-acted by Washington and Pattinson, are also not that fleshed out and Nolan's writing for female characters continues to be meh. However, as a director and choreographer of scenes, Nolan might be unmatched in the current movie landscape. So the question is: do you care about the movie? If you can't connect to the characters and the plot, then the answer will be no. But I personally strapped myself in, looked past the debatable physics explanation and was all for a cinema thrillride after not going there for over 6 months. I can't really pinpoint why, but despite the lack of connection between the characters and the audience and the puzzle being more convoluted than complex, I still loved watching everything unfold and trying to keep up with what was going on. Just take the opening scene. Beyond the plot and characters, just the plain incredible directing is enough for me to just sit back and watch in awe. The editing is great and the soundtrack phenomenal. Since I'm watching this in the Netherlands there are always subtitles below movies in the cinema. I usually don't read them, but I guess when the sound is too loud to hear the dialogue my brain automatically instead reads the subtitles. It seems to be so automated over the years that I can't recall whether and/or how often the music was too loud for me to hear the dialogue, but because of those subtitles it never really bothered me. But I can imagine that without subtitles it could be an issue. Anyways, in the end Tenet was an amazing experience back in the theater, even if after you arrive home it doesn't really stick with you as much as previous Nolan movies. Had Tenet dialed back a bit on the many time layers in the 3rd act and focused more on giving emotional weight to the characters, we could've had another Inception like success. As it stands, Tenet is not that and probably sits near the lower tier of Nolan movies, but for me it was a great experience and definitely something that you should see on the big screen.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 4, 2020 19:54:26 GMT
Palm Springs (2020) - 8/10
Link = letterboxd.com/kevinwriter/film/palm-springs-2020/After months of almost watching no movies that came out this year, I realized that there are like at least 40 movies that already came out this year that I really want to watch and I started with this one. Palm Springs probably hits a bit closer to home than the makers expected due to the at this point seemingly endless daily grind in (semi-)quarantine since March. I'm not sure when exactly this movie was written and edited and whether the pandemic has had an impact on the final result, but either way it is a movie very fitting of its release year. While he has been attached to some less-than-great works in the past, editor Matthew Friedman really displayed his editing talent in The Farewell and does it again in this movie. The story may be very well-paced and the director most likely also had a say in the cuts in scenes, but it is especially the editing that makes the movie feel like 60 minutes instead of 90 and keeps us interested throughout so huge props to that department. Palm Springs manages to seperate itself from the other Groundhog Day movies by adding a twist in the number of people in the time loop. Its a slight adjustment, but it makes the movie so much more dynamic than it would have been otherwise. Its only slight weakness might be that the script, while well written, just doesn't stand out that much when you strip away the time-loop aspect itself. This results in a situation where the eventual success of the movie has to rely on the chemistry between Andy and Cristin. And luckily for both us and the movie they both completely deliver. From his TV role in Brooklyn Nine-Nine to his lead role in Popstar and now Palm Springs, Andy just continues to grow as an actor and, in my opinion, is one of the top-tier comedy actors right now. To be honest I don't recall seeing Cristin Milioti in a movie I had seen before this one, but she is also fantastic in this one and will hopefully star in many more movies to come. Witty and very well paced, Palm Springs shows that the time-loop genre is everything except stale and is propelled to great heights by the amazing chemistry between its two leads.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 4, 2020 19:55:12 GMT
Enola Holmes (2020) - 6/10
Link = letterboxd.com/kevinwriter/film/enola-holmes/Enola Holmes feels like a movie that came out in the late 2000s. I'm not really sure why, maybe it's the way it breaks the fourth wall, maybe it's the plot twist villains, but it really brings me back to the movies of my childhood. In general, this is a fun, adventurous and charming movie with a great lead performance by Millie Bobby Brown. She shows she can definitely carry a movie and based on her work here I have no doubt that, even after Stranger Things, she will remain one of the big names in the industry. To be completely honest I feel like Henry Cavill wasn't the best casting for Sherlock, but I can't help but like just how much fun Henry has with the role. In terms of characters, the main issue I have is with the villains, which are severely underwritten and just feel like they're there because they need to be there, not because the writers actually wanted to flesh them out. The main detractor of the movie is how much it holds your hand throughout the story, almost to the point of being condescending at times. I think it's a miscalculation in how much breaking of the fourth wall should have been used. It's serves the story well at times, but at other times it's way overdone. We don't need Millie asking us 'Do you know what to do?' followed by a 5 second pause, we're not watching a Dora the Explorer episode. At times this was so extreme that it impacted how much I enjoyed the movie. Since I've seen the movie I've switched between a 2.5/5 and 3.0/5 multiple times. In the end I do think I had a fun time watching it so I guess a 3.0 will do, but I can imagine that it'll keep fluctuating over time. It really think this movie feels like a start to a franchise and I'd be interested to watch next installments, if they are ever made. If they reel in the fourth wall breaking a bit, I think there is great potential for a possible series of movies (it could even work as a tv show). Also, I feel like the suffragettes storyline of Eudoria, imo the most interesting part of the movie, was kind of sidelined. There was never any real conclusion to that storyline, which fails to give the movie the real empowerment theme that I think it wanted to have. There's great discussion potential regarding moderate (Enola) vs more radical (Eudoria) means of changing the world, but it's never really touched upon and in the end the movie kind of goes the safe route by only discussing the moderate parts by getting Tewkesbury in the House of Lords, which also kinda muddles the empowerment message the movie wants to achieve. If there are sequels to this movie, I think those are the best elements to explore. As it is, Enola Holmes is a fun and charming movie that relies a bit too much on its fourth wall breaking and has some underwritten characters, but still succeeds in general due to a great lead peformance by Millie Bobby Brown.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 4, 2020 19:55:59 GMT
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) - 6/10
Link = letterboxd.com/kevinwriter/film/the-man-from-uncle/Having watched multiple Guy Ritchie movies at this point, I think I can now safely come to the conclusion that I'm not the biggest admirer of his style. It is not meant as a personal dig at Guy Ritchie, I'm sure he does his best and a lot of people love his movies, but to it just feels like he tries way too hard to be 'stylish' in all his projects. Ritchie's signature style feels so heavily influenced by other directors, but unfortunately always ends up as less than the sum of its parts. His heavily Tarantino inspired dialogue (especially in his earlier movies) often feels like a mediocre to poor imitation of the original, something that even bothered me in his lauded movie Snatch. His quick cuts and editing techniques don't feel like they serve a purpose and instead only disorient the viewer and not in a good way. Other contemporary directors like Adam McKay, Danny Boyle and Steven Soderbergh have perfected similar techniques to a much higher degree in my opinion. Similarly, his music choices and satirical overreliance of it in action scenes feels similar to the work of Tarantino and Edgar Wright, but unfortunately also less refined, which makes those scenes feel flat at times. And this is of course a personal thing, but I'm not the biggest fan of his style of comedy. It relies so much on creating these situations where people react in such an unrealistic manner to show off how cool they are under circumstances where pretty much everyone else would not be calm. But this is forced so much, for example in a certain Italian truck scene, that it almost becomes cringe inducing. So after having said all of that, I did like The Man from U.N.C.L.E., but it's not because of Guy Ritchie's style but instead despite it. Because this movie is carried by three fantastic lead performances by Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer and Alicia Vikander. Their acting talent, charm and natural chemistry keeps the movie entertaining throughout its entire runtime. The movie is also easily the best paced Ritchie movie I've seen, even though I still do think it didn't need to be two hours for the story it wanted to tell. If there's one thing I can't critique Ritichie for it's his action setpieces, which are always extremely entertaining and well directed. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a fun, entertaining ride, carried by three phenomenal lead actors, but slightly bogged down by Ritchie's directing style of which I'm not the biggest fan. If you do like his other movies I'm certain you'll love this one as well, but if your opinion is more in line with my first paragraph, expect an okay, but not spectacular movie.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 4, 2020 20:07:37 GMT
And since I'm busy anyways here's my current top 50. The last one I posted was one year ago.
01 / 2006 / Children of Men 02 / 1975 / Barry Lyndon 03 / 2003 / The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 04 / 2017 / Blade Runner 2049 05 / 1979 / Alien 06 / 2001 / Spirited Away 07 / 1993 / Schindler's List 08 / 2019 / Parasite 09 / 1980 / Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back 10 / 2001 / The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
11 / 2015 / Mad Max: Fury Road 12 / 2006 / Pan's Labyrinth 13 / 1989 / Do the Right Thing 14 / 2013 / The Wind Rises 15 / 2017 / Dunkirk 16 / 1980 / The Shining 17 / 2012 / It's Such A Beautiful Day 18 / 1959 / North by Northwest 19 / 2011 / The Tree of Life 20 / 2017 / Paddington 2
21 / 1968 / 2001: A Space Odyssey 22 / 2014 / Whiplash 23 / 2009 / Inglourious Basterds 24 / 2018 / Hereditary 25 / 1985 / Back to the Future 26 / 2014 / Boyhood 27 / 2013 / Under the Skin 28 / 2019 / Marriage Story 29 / 2008 / Wall-E 30 / 1993 / Jurassic Park
31 / 2019 / Uncut Gems 32 / 2004 / Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 50 / 2014 / The Grand Budapest Hotel 13 / 2010 / Inception 34 / 1997 / Princess Mononoke 26 / 2018 / Annihilation 16 / 1972 / The Godfather 25 / 2014 / The Babadook 39 / 1996 / Fargo 40 / 2010 / Toy Story 3
41 / 2002 / The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 46 / 2017 / A Ghost Story 43 / 1994 / Pulp Fiction 44 / 2007 / Hot Fuzz 45 / 1977 / Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope 46 / 2016 / The Handmaiden 47 / 1954 / Rear Window 42 / 1975 / Monty Python and the Holy Grail 49 / 2019 / Little Women 50 / 1986 / Aliens
|
|