|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 11, 2024 18:58:57 GMT
Oh, and The Crow and its off-shoots may or may not count as 'horror' depending on how pedantic you wanna be, BUT the first one takes place on Devil's Night (we called it mischief night when I was a kid) and Halloween night. So my annoying, incessant rambling about it is fully acceptable for October. Yeah I've always rewatched it in October due to when it takes place. In my hometown, the night before Halloween is called 'Cabbage Night.' The stories I could tell. Just to add to your list of nitpicks, why were Eric and Shelley being evicted? Top Dollar says it was on his say so, and we learn from Albrecht that nobody would go against him after Eric and Shelly were killed, but to what end? It certainly wasn't gentrification; the entire neighborhood is still a shit hole a year later, and the building is derelict. I don't see what he had to gain. It could be part of bringing the value of the entire section of the city down over a few years' time, thus a larger gentrification project could be underway. But Top Dollar doesn't seem to be motivated by wealth. He quite literally just wants to watch the world burn. Fair enough, but in that case why bother with legal actions like eviction? Just send your thugs to kill people without leaving a paper trail in the first place. Whatever, the movie is awesome, and I'm thinking too hard about all of this. Another underrated moment is after he kills Fun Boy and turns to Darla as she starts screaming. For a hot second the music gets intense and foreboding, but he subverts expectations and instead of attacking her, uses a forced-sobriety power on her, which adds to his already impressive list of unheard of or underused super powers. As you said, Lee brings a humanity to the role that runs the gamut of emotions. At times frightened, at times morose, at times smug and totally badass (as with Tin-Tin, Gideon and Fun Boy). the physical acting as well as the line delivery, he nails it all. Like we talked about earlier in the thread, "I have something for you. I don't want it anymore." That line doesn't work delivered by a standard action hero. He wasn't a macho vigilante at that point. He was vulnerable, nearing the end, final resolution Eric. Then he takes it up a notch, "Thirty hours of pain, all at once, all for you." So good. Despite the tragedy that took Brandon's life, we should count our blessings that strong willed creeps were among those championing the completion of the film, and that it was close enough to being finished when he was killed to even make that an option. Don't ever worry about repeating yourself if you're talking about a great film! I'm sure I stepped all over my review in this thread a few years ago in this conversation, and I don't care. It deserves to be remembered and celebrated, just like Brandon Lee himself. You may be overthinking it a little, but then again the script may have under-thought it. In my memory Shelly either signed or started a petition to fight back against some other tenants being evicted, not themselves, and Top Dollar went after them just because they complained... but I don't remember the details, and wisely the movie spends almost no time with this subplot. Why was Top Dollar evicting people? Who knows? He's evil. It wouldn't have made much difference if he sent his guys after them randomly, except that it gave Ernie Hudson something to do in a few scenes. And yeah, the human Narcan moment somehow works. But were people doing morphine in the 90s? I never really heard of that being a popular street drug, but then again I don't hang with the likes of Skank, TinTin, and Funboy. I'll keep in mind that repeating myself is apprdciate here when I do my inevitable episode by episode recap of all 22 episodes The Crow: Stairway to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2024 12:39:34 GMT
Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame would have turned 100 a few days ago, so I figured that would be a good justification for finally watching his Magnum Opus, which is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. For very good reason. It really is astoundingly poorly made. In a way you gotta admire the guy for following his passion even though he clearly had neither the knowledge nor the talent for it.
Then a day later I watched Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which covers the aspiring rogue filmmaker’s first attempts to break into the business, including his friendship with former star Bela Lugosi (portrayed by Martin Landau, who deservedly got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his effort), up until the making of “Plan 9”. I had seen it once, when it came out thirty years ago, at a time when I probably hadn’t even heard of Ed Wood OR Plan 9 from Outer Space. I don’t know how faithful it is to the real events, but it is a good movie and certainly worth watching it as a companion piece to the earlier one.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 13, 2024 14:04:28 GMT
Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame would have turned 100 a few days ago, so I figured that would be a good justification for finally watching his Magnum Opus, which is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. For very good reason. It really is astoundingly poorly made. In a way you gotta admire the guy for following his passion even though he clearly had neither the knowledge nor the talent for it. Then a day later I watched Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which covers the aspiring rogue filmmaker’s first attempts to break into the business, including his friendship with former star Bela Lugosi (portrayed by Martin Landau, who deservedly got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his effort), up until the making of “Plan 9”. I had seen it once, when it came out thirty years ago, at a time when I probably hadn’t even heard of Ed Wood OR Plan 9 from Outer Space. I don’t know how faithful it is to the real events, but it is a good movie and certainly worth watching it as a companion piece to the earlier one. Ed Wood is a fun little movie and Landau was solid, but that Oscar belonged to Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp Fiction. It's one of those 'lifetime achievement award' Oscars for Landau, who had been around forever, and one of the great Oscar robberies of all time.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 13, 2024 14:39:22 GMT
Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame would have turned 100 a few days ago, so I figured that would be a good justification for finally watching his Magnum Opus, which is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. For very good reason. It really is astoundingly poorly made. In a way you gotta admire the guy for following his passion even though he clearly had neither the knowledge nor the talent for it. Then a day later I watched Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which covers the aspiring rogue filmmaker’s first attempts to break into the business, including his friendship with former star Bela Lugosi (portrayed by Martin Landau, who deservedly got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his effort), up until the making of “Plan 9”. I had seen it once, when it came out thirty years ago, at a time when I probably hadn’t even heard of Ed Wood OR Plan 9 from Outer Space. I don’t know how faithful it is to the real events, but it is a good movie and certainly worth watching it as a companion piece to the earlier one. Ed Wood is a fun little movie and Landau was solid, but that Oscar belonged to Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp Fiction. It's one of those 'lifetime achievement award' Oscars for Landau, who had been around forever, and one of the great Oscar robberies of all time. Have you disagree while I kind of agree. This is the popular narrative, but it's actually an instance where there was no wrong choice. People seem to forget just how great Landau was in this role. It's a great role with as good a performance, and it's the best performance of Landau's extraordinary career. Nobody could have argued if Sam Jackson won, but Martin Landau's transformative performance is second to none.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2024 14:42:17 GMT
Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame would have turned 100 a few days ago, so I figured that would be a good justification for finally watching his Magnum Opus, which is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. For very good reason. It really is astoundingly poorly made. In a way you gotta admire the guy for following his passion even though he clearly had neither the knowledge nor the talent for it. Then a day later I watched Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which covers the aspiring rogue filmmaker’s first attempts to break into the business, including his friendship with former star Bela Lugosi (portrayed by Martin Landau, who deservedly got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his effort), up until the making of “Plan 9”. I had seen it once, when it came out thirty years ago, at a time when I probably hadn’t even heard of Ed Wood OR Plan 9 from Outer Space. I don’t know how faithful it is to the real events, but it is a good movie and certainly worth watching it as a companion piece to the earlier one. Ed Wood is a fun little movie and Landau was solid, but that Oscar belonged to Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp Fiction. It's one of those 'lifetime achievement award' Oscars for Landau, who had been around forever, and one of the great Oscar robberies of all time. Samuel Jackson would have certainly been a worthy winner. I didn't remember that Martin Landau had won; after I finished the movie I thought "that was a great performance by him, I wonder if he was nominated for the Oscar". I checked and saw that he won, but I didn't check who the other nominees had been.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 13, 2024 14:46:22 GMT
Saturday Night (2024) is a fun movie for anyone remotely interested in SNL. Obviously much of it is highly fictionalized and dramatized, but it does a great job of bringing across how radical a concept the show was for its time, and how difficult a sell this was to corporate as well as audiences. It was a hell of a gamble. The actors playing the Not Ready For Prime Time Players as well as the guest comedians all did a tremendous job channeling their respective characters, and the movie has such pace that it's hard not to get sucked into the story even though you know it all works out in the end.
A fun anecdote: So my wife didn't have much exposure to film or television growing up (whereas I always like to joke that I was raised by cable tv-- in fact it's probably why she's much smarter than I am!), and sometimes I forget how little interest she has in this stuff. She enjoys tv and movies, but it's all pretty disposable in her mind. Anyway it's easy to watch Saturday Night under the assumption that most people bothering to watch the movie will know who most of the characters are. As the movie progressed, I figured I'd have to explain Andy Kaufman and Milton Berle to her, but everything else seemed self-explanatory.
She had no idea who anyone was. Well, she knew Chevy Chase (Christmas Vacation is a holiday staple in our household), and George Carlin (Carlin is my favorite comedian of all time; I have Carlin books (remember books?), Carlin CDs (remember CDs?), hell I even have Class Clown on vinyl (vinyl is apparently making a comeback, so we all remember it). But she didn't know who Dan Aykroyd was despite watching plenty of Aykroyd movies with me. "Hon, he's one of the Ghostbusters," I exclaimed. While she knew Carlin, she didn't know he was just the host of the first episode, he wasn't part of the cast. She didn't know who Billy Crystal was, and I know she's watched Billy Crystal movies with me.
Anyway the point I'm making here (besides mocking my wife for being too cool for the room) is that you don't have to be steeped in SNL or comedy lore to appreciate Saturday Night, because she enjoyed it despite basically not knowing anything about it. And I mentioned it off the top, they killed it with this group of actors. The writing can turn many of them into borderline caricatures at times, but the actors never ham it up or go over the top on their own. From interviews and the stories you've heard over the years, you watch this movie and in every scene you think, "Yeah, I could see them saying/doing that."
It's good fun, I highly recommend it to fans of SNL and fans of comedy in general.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 13, 2024 14:49:40 GMT
Ed Wood is a fun little movie and Landau was solid, but that Oscar belonged to Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp Fiction. It's one of those 'lifetime achievement award' Oscars for Landau, who had been around forever, and one of the great Oscar robberies of all time. Samuel Jackson would have certainly been a worthy winner. I didn't remember that Martin Landau had won; after I finished the movie I thought "that was a great performance by him, I wonder if he was nominated for the Oscar". I checked and saw that he won, but I didn't check who the other nominees had been. As goons said, there wasn't really a bad choice. It just feels to me like one of those 'give it to the guy who's been around for a while, because the up and comer will have more opportunities' picks. It's just one of those things that I always complain about while insisting I don't care about the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 13, 2024 15:37:55 GMT
Ed Wood of Plan 9 from Outer Space fame would have turned 100 a few days ago, so I figured that would be a good justification for finally watching his Magnum Opus, which is widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all time. For very good reason. It really is astoundingly poorly made. In a way you gotta admire the guy for following his passion even though he clearly had neither the knowledge nor the talent for it. Then a day later I watched Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, which covers the aspiring rogue filmmaker’s first attempts to break into the business, including his friendship with former star Bela Lugosi (portrayed by Martin Landau, who deservedly got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his effort), up until the making of “Plan 9”. I had seen it once, when it came out thirty years ago, at a time when I probably hadn’t even heard of Ed Wood OR Plan 9 from Outer Space. I don’t know how faithful it is to the real events, but it is a good movie and certainly worth watching it as a companion piece to the earlier one. I think Ed Wood is possibly Burton's masterpiece and the best film ever made about filmmaking. I don't have a good answer when someone asks what my favorite movie is, but my stock answer has become Ed Wood. It's tonally perfect in a story that would be tricky for anyone to portray in the right light. Ever element works, every performance is good, it looks great and somehow is exceptionally well directed while also invoking the style of the 'worst' director in history. No small feat. The broad strokes are faithful to the true story but it's obviously presented in a less than realistic format. You can probably guess where things deviate, like when Edward D. Wood Jr didn't actually meet Bela Lugosi as he trying out coffins and he didn't actually run into Orson Welles for a pep talk for instance, and Lugosi was more or less a gentleman who didn't go into potty mouth tirades about Boris Karloff. But likewise the movie presents everything in a stylized, tongue-in-cheek way and you get the sense that this is how the ever-positive and optimistic Ed Wood may have remembered these events. That's especially true with the ending. It was such a wise move to sidestep the issues of most biopics and not do a cradle-to-grave thing, and just start with the Lugosi years, have the emotional section with Lugosi's stuggles with drugs, rehab, and death, and end with a subversive 'triumph' with the premier of Plan 9. That ending is perfect. It's the triumph of his career because he really truly loved that film, but of course we have the ironic hindsight of how it's remembered, and yet the fact that it and he are remembered at all is a triumph, and a profound one at that. He proposes and they rush off to get married as an ominous thunderstorm rains down on them, they can't get the roof of his car up, and he says 'It'll probably stop raining by the time we get to the next block' or something equally, misguided and optimistic, as the music (perfectly scored by Howard Shore, in one of the few times Burton didn't work with Danny Elfman) hits the right blend of irony and emotion. As the text tells you in the credits, things didn't fare well for Ed Wood after this. His career devolved into even cheaper and weaker films, like some 'nudie' pics, and he fell into alcoholism and depression. The movie tells you about this but makes sure that it's all about the beauty of the pursuit of passion and joy, in spite of the many obstacles, that in this case includes a lack of talent. It's just about perfect in pretty much every way. Plan 9 itself is also extremely entertaining, for all the wrong reasons, but is extremely entertaining all the same. It's hardly 'the worst' movie ever because it's just so damn enjoyable. Bela Lugosi himself was in worse films than this, and Ed Wood made worse ones as well. The other movies so brilliantly depicted and meticulously recreated in the Burton film are also worth checking out. Bride of the Monster is a fun, bad monster/mad scientist movie, but Glen or Glenda is a wildly bizarre movie. It's kind of like an avant-garde art film by way of Ed Wood. It's soooooo weird and dumb. It's obviously inept, and yet in some way it touches on some actual level of surrealism that I've rarely seen elsewhere. But the weirdest thing about it is maybe the message he's trying to send. It's true that Ed Wood was a straight man and also an occasional cross dresser, and there are sections of the movie where he doesn't just argue that you should accept people's preferences, but also that it's somehow better and healthier for men to wear women's clothes. It's done with voice over Ed Wood starring in his own clips in what's both like a PSA after school special, and art film with a weird figure played by Bela Lugosi intersecting with nonsensical poetic declarations. In some ways it's much worse than Plan 9, but it's also more unique and original. Aaaaaanyway... I could go on forever about both that film and the actual filmmaker (in fact I wrote a very lengthy paper on this very subject college). I grew up on both Tim Burton films and Mystery Science Theater 3000, but didn't see Ed Wood until years later, and when I did it felt like it was a film made specifically for me. I haven't actually watched it in a while, but I always come out of it in a better mood and with more creative and positive energy every time I see it, or even parts of it. There are other good ones, but like I said, it's the best film about filmmaking. Nothing quite nails the positivity, energy, commeradie, and joy of the endeavor. Burton said he wanted to capture the feeling of a group of weirdos getting together to make a small movie (and he nailed it) and that the Ed Wood/Lugosi relationship was largely inspired by his own relationship with Vincent Price at the end of his life and you can feel how personal it all is... and it's just a uniquely great film in general.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 13, 2024 15:59:53 GMT
Samuel Jackson would have certainly been a worthy winner. I didn't remember that Martin Landau had won; after I finished the movie I thought "that was a great performance by him, I wonder if he was nominated for the Oscar". I checked and saw that he won, but I didn't check who the other nominees had been. As goons said, there wasn't really a bad choice. It just feels to me like one of those 'give it to the guy who's been around for a while, because the up and comer will have more opportunities' picks. It's just one of those things that I always complain about while insisting I don't care about the Oscars. It is probably a small measure of consolation for Mr. Jackson that 50 years from now people will still be saying “it ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t even the same sport” and “English, motherfucker, do you speak it?” and “say ‘what’ one more time. I dare you. I double-dare you!”
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 13, 2024 17:16:59 GMT
As goons said, there wasn't really a bad choice. It just feels to me like one of those 'give it to the guy who's been around for a while, because the up and comer will have more opportunities' picks. It's just one of those things that I always complain about while insisting I don't care about the Oscars. It is probably a small measure of consolation for Mr. Jackson that 50 years from now people will still be saying “it ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t even the same sport” and “English, motherfucker, do you speak it?” and “say ‘what’ one more time. I dare you. I double-dare you!” And so many more. It's kind of absurd that he hasn't been nominated since. Jackie Brown is an obvious oversight, and I was sure he would win for Django Unchained when I saw that (Leo too, but neither were nominated, somehow). While we're on this, how was Johnny Depp not nominated for Ed Wood? I know that the internet has turned against Forrest Gump for whatever reason, but Tom Hanks is obviously great in that movie, so that's hard to argue with. But Depp's performance is pretty special. He not only fits the tone of the movie, but kinda sets the tone of the movie. He creates this tone with his performance that's equal parts heightened and cartoonish, earnest and real, and in keeping with the acting style contemporary of the time in which it's set. It was definitely worthy lf recognition.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 15, 2024 19:53:46 GMT
Watched In A Violent Nature (2024) last night, which is now available on Shudder. I'm sure you know, this is a film shot almost entirely from the perspective of the killer. We have seen this technique employed before in various films, recently and notably in Halloween (2018), in what is a standout sequence in that film. Basically, anyone watching that said "holy shit, this is awesome, I'd watch a whole movie of just that!" Well, here you go. What works here? Well, this is definitely an experiment and the idea of following our killer around for virtually all of the runtime is something I haven't really seen before, at least not to this extent. I love anyone that pushes boundaries and tries new things and if you're like me in that regard, then this movie is for you.
This movie is GORY. Make no mistake, this one delivers on the violence and blood. If you have seen it, the "Yoga Kill" - holy shit, it is glorious in its gratuitousness. Plus, there are some terrific practical effects and they do some interesting camerawork in spots. Necessity is the mother of invention and when you have a tiny budget like this one does, you have to get creative and there are some terrific sequences that showcase that creativity.
What's also kind of interesting is that there's basically a whole other movie going on that we largely don't see, namely from the victims point of view. Early on, we're introduced to a cast of completely forgettable (seemingly by design) victims but outside of one scene, we only see them from the killer's POV. So the only information we get is when the killer happens to walk by them and overhears them. It makes for some extremely clunky dialogue and doesn't really work narratively, but it's an interesting concept for sure. But for example, at one point, the characters take a group picture and the killer can be faintly seen in the background when they take it. In a normal movie, we'd have a scene where a character looks at the picture later in the movie, sees him, and that causes the alarms to go off. Here, we see the picture taken and only later do we hear a character mention "what about the guy in the picture?" and that's it. We don't get that scene where the characters discover the situation, thus raising the tension.
From a horror movie standpoint, however, doing it this way kinda kills any tension that may have existed. Usually, we see characters talking, we don't know exactly where the killer is or who is getting the axe, which creates suspense. Here, we always know where the killer is and who he is stalking so you're really just kind of along for the ride. The only two scenes where there is any tension is the early scene where we meet the victims (a dizzying, very long scene where the camera just goes around and around and around the group where the killer is somewhere in the woods nearby) and then the polarizing monologue at the end. At the end of the movie, when I felt tense due to the fact that you don't see the killer, it dawned on me that this was basically the first time I had felt that.
What will undoubtedly turn some people off, however, is the pace. Since we're with the killer the whole time, you'll see him kill someone, but then he has to get to another part of the territory and you will basically just watch him walk. And walk. And walk. It's actually quite soothing and given that there is no score (only diagetic music in spots), it almost serves as an ASMR video, like a nature stroll. All you hear, for about half the movie's runtime, is the sound of the killer's footsteps through the woods and the ambient noise of the wind, birds and insects. Some reviews I read, in describing this aspect of the movie, said that it's the most soothing slasher you'll ever experience. I think that's fair.
To me, it seems like the entire movie is meant to be amusing in that we always chide the cliche in Friday the 13th and Halloween where our victims are running, while Jason/Michael and just slowly walking and they inevitably catch up. Here, we legit just see the killer walking from Point A to Point B, highlighting just how boring being a horror movie killer can be once the deed is done. It's funny (kinda), and certainly inventive, but it doesn't always make for a great movie. It's more like you're watching someone play a video game.
Anyway, an imperfect movie for sure but I love the concept and there are some standout sequences. The characters are atrocious and entirely forgettable, and the film's structure renders the narrative quite flat. But the idea is something that someone else can really build upon and I am sure we're going to see someone copycat this, either in whole or in part, but do it in a more narratively satisfying way. It's funny you say this movie is 'soothing' and 'like ASMR' because someone on the horror board made the same comment recently, and when I watched it I actually nodded off a few times. That sounds like an insult, but I really don't mean it that way. I was just exhausted, and tried again the next night, (when I was still exhausted) and nearly gave in that time too. But it WAS soothing. The shooting style and the music-free sound design really did have a calming effect. Looking at the killer's perspective in a movie like this is a really interesting experiment and the result does involve a lot of just walking in the woods and moments that might be considered 'boring' by typical slasher audiences. But some of those stalking scenes are fascinating and engaging, but just in an entirely different way. You generally covered it, but just to respond on a few of those points; The movie reminded me a little more of Halloween II from 1981 than the scene from Halloween 2018.. but just some of the opening scenes, the ones that were influential on 2018, more specifically, because they follow Micheal not only as he stalks people, but as he stands in shadow just outside of the view of people talking about it him and where he might be. And those are the few semi tense scenes in this movie, which does sort of beg the age old, annoying as hell question; 'is it really a horror movie?' Becuase if no scares are intended, and tension and fright are not the goal, is it horror? Is the iconography of the genre enough? Does simply depicting horrific content qualify? I'd say it does, but this movie also sort of has a different angle on being 'scary.' It's completely backwards approach has an odd, and kind of unsettling effect. The script, as you mentioned, seems to basically be a completely ordinary and clichéd slasher movie script, but that's just going on in the background. Like the idea with the picture scene that we never really see, but you know is in the non-existent traditional version of this movie, there's also a character who only appears in the 3rd act, who has a deep history with this killer's story and has all the information and provides it to the characters who would be protagonists if this wasn't told from this perspective. He speaks with authority and is detailing the history, but we've never seen this guy before. In the ordinary version we'd have been introduced to him in the first act and this would be a big dramatic moment, but this movie subverts almost everything. Which is a bit narratively frustrating, but I really respect the commitment. The effects are mostly really good, but I did think you could spot the seams at times, like the killer's bulky hands look like gloves on an actors hands, and I think the moment if showing the killer's face in full was a big mistake. And that yoga, Cliffside kill was great, but also feels very 'effectsy' since the shooting style demands that the character behave in a way that lets this scene play out slowly and it doesn't make much sense. She screams at first, but then just kinda stands there and let's her body get brutalized, so it just kinda feels fake... but still, what a great, disgusting, brutal kill. I think the ending really works. It's yet again another subversion of expectations, and the acting is actually good for, maybe the first time.. and that may be by design. The movie is showing you the scenes you usually don't see in a movie like this, almost like what Tarantino was doing with Reservoir Dogs, but instead of colorful entertaining conversations, you get silence and sound, and intentionally shallow dialogue in the background and off camera. And then the end is yet another version of a scene you usually don't get. You are reminded, of course, of the end of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where the main character is saved by getting into a vehicle that takes her away from there horror, and that's the ending because she's saved. Here, she gets in the car, and then we see the entirety of that awkward car ride. She doesn't wanna talk, the driver wants to know what's going on, and there are long stretches of silence. And those long stretches of silence and shots of the woods along the roadside do actually become tense, largely because we are finally not in the killer's perspective anymore, and becuase of how long this scene goes on with pretty much nothing really happening. It's not perfect, and maybe it's too long, but this film is legitimately unique, which I kind of thought was impossible in the slasher genre. The commitment to doing something different and the real, true commitment to the concept, with a few disappointing moments in between, is really admirable and mostly very well executed. I'd be very curious about the script, because even though it's obviously written to be depicted in this way, I kind of imagine it's a pretty uninteresting because pretty much everything that works is the way it's directed.
|
|