i dunno. as an act of "performance art", maybe it deserves the merit. as for me, i felt at times as if i were binging on a TV show from the nineties--one that wasn't very interesting. it did have a certain charm, but ultimately, whatevs.
Highly-skilled acting and filmmaking--kind of old-school style, which I like: big scope, big soundtrack, big emotions. Even Brad Pitt, who I guess weaselled a cameo out of his role as producer, doesn't do it any harm.
Brilliant ... LvT is one of the best directors working today, and i found this better than anything he's done recently. If you don't like foreign film, but do like pornography, you'll still like this film.
two gripes: editing. this film could have lost twenty minutes and you'd never know. and is it necessary to put the colour blue in every single shot? gets to be kitschy after a while. otherwise, worth the watch for the masterful performance by the lead. this is great acting.
Not a great Bond film, but a very, very good one. Craig was not yet at home in the role; you can sense a bit of a struggle to redefine Bond and make it his own. The later part of the film lags a bit, but all in all I enjoyed it. Mikkelsen makes a great villain.
If you enjoy films as "art", you'll like this, despite the fact that it is unsettling. It's a beautiful film, pitch-perfect on all notes. The dialogue is exceptional and the acting perfect--Olsen absolutely shines in what must have been a challenging role to play.
A well-done review of what was a horrifying period in our very recent history: Young (mostly) gay men were dying in droves and--for years--we didn't little or nothing to help them. If you'd like to see a true picture of courage, listen to the men interviewed in this documentary.
Didn't get the attention it deserves. It's not a male version of "Black Swan", it's a far better film. An interesting and mature study of the glorification and celebration of violence among men as entertainment and its costs. Rourke gives a raw, visceral performance.
I'm not sure, but I believe DDA is the first film in which a young Pacnio flipped out. Consequently, he would be flipping out in almost every other movie he went on to make (Scent of a Woman, Devil's Advocate, etc.). This is because he's great at it and it's a thrill to watch.
Very good, though disturbing in its content. Directed/shot with great style. Freeman and Spacey are great, as always. Pitt's limited range as an actor is evident in the more emotional scenes, but it doesn't take away from the movie too much.
I love "Blade Runner". Twenty-one years old and hasn't aged at all ... Scott, working with less-advanced film technology, is tough to match to this day. E.g. "Looper", a film in a similar vein, which doesn't even come close it BR's depth and complexity.
So get this, true story: A guy has a stroke and is "locked in", i.e. completely paralyzed except for his left eye. AND THEN HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT. Watch it to see how. Also, the film is beautifully and artfully made.
No plot, no words, no actors. Simply a collection of images and an abstract score from Phillip Glass. It's a bit challenging and requires some patience, but it's ultimately brilliant, and beautifully shot. A profound comment on modern society and where it's headed.
Spectacular. Funny, thrilling, interesting. Evidence that, even with all the CG in the world, you can't make a good movie without the basics: a great story and great actors. RDJ is PERFECT in the role.
One of the all-time greats from the eighties. Funny, but also an insightful examination of how a group of young people, once confined, are forced to strip away stereotype and identities self-made and imposed.
Very, very good, but not very great. In Pulp Fiction, every scene is pitch-perfect; not the case here. Some hit great heights (i.e. the opening scene with Waltz is RIDICULOUSLY good ) while others are OK at best. Ultimately, Waltz, Brühl and Laurent make the film.
To those who love the graphic novel (myself included: it's one of the best things I've ever read), it's a welcome translation of the original. Judged solely as a film, however, it's OK; the novel is simply too complex, too far-reaching and smart to compress into a feature film.
Despite all its efforts, this movie is ultimately stupid. An advanced, alien civilization plots the invasion of Earth and somehow forgets to take into account the fact the planet is composed largely of water, which is toxic to them. Whoever wrote that plot line is an idiot.
An excellent and unsettling commentary of race and racism in contemporary American society. Ed Norton makes the film: He's an absolute beast. Watched it many times and would happily watch it many more.
A perfect film. Every scene is memorable. Tarantino's best in that it lacks nothing, every performance is spot-on. Editing, pacing, score, etc., etc., all perfect. And the dialogue! What fucking amazing writing. Every single sentence is quotable.
A good movie. Not spectacular: Affleck and Damon wrote it as young, developing artists, and it shows. Some of the dialogue is just ridiculous and incredible ("How do you like them apples?"). That stated, I enjoyed it.
Think I watched this movie two-dozen times in my teenage years, and knew every word. A very skillful, slick adaptation of Welsh's novel--which isn't actually a linear story but a collection of loosely connected tales. Hats of to Boyle for that. Also, WICKED soundtrack.
I was maybe seven when my brother thought it'd be a great idea to show me this. Asshole. At that time, I believed in God--and the Devil as well, obviously. I think I went to bed terrified for a month afterwards. Even now, you'd have to pay me a lot of money to watch it.
I am a complete pussy when it comes to horror films; I rarely ever watch them. I watched this once when I was a kid and I'll never watch it again ... it's a masterful study in absolute, claustrophobic, unescapable terror. Brilliant.
Pales in comparison to the epic, brilliant, amazing, well-wrought novel that inspired it, but still OK. McCarthy's premise is disturbing and thought-provoking: In a world in which the biosphere is dead, how would we behave? His answer ain't pretty.
A terrific film, and a great example of how to create terror without falling back on guts and gore or cheap scares. Having seen a few other Shyamalan films, I can't help but think he got lucky with this one; the rest come nowhere near it.
Another example of a film that exceeds the novel--and the book is amazing. Bardem's Anton Chigurgh will go down as one of the best film villains, ever. An epic meditation on masculinity, violence and terror in the changing American South.
Surprisingly intelligent and overt as a Hollywood film in terms of its political commentary. In its conclusion it falls back on cliche as a story mechanism (the old tape recorder trick), but all in all, great.
Excellent. Clooney does not have a lot of range as an actor, but in this role he's perfectly at home. And no other man on Earth looks as good in a shirt and tie. I'm also biased towards films that unabashedly showcase chain-smoking.
An example of Pitt's problem as an actor: delivering and articulating his lines well. A shame, since otherwise his performance is great (i.e. physical acting) and his appearance is perfect for the role. His first fight is jaw-droppingly awesome, one of the best I've seen. Good.