MovieMeditation's "One, Two, Three" Reviews!

[MovieMeditation]

_________________________________

MOVIEMEDITATIONS
https://s26.postimg.org/oaj5tzhyh/maxresdefault-2.jpg
REVIEWS
_________________________________

Hello everybody :)

My diary thread finally reached its demise after two years of torture trying to keep that thing alive until the bitter end... We got there, thankfully, but that doesn't mean I'm done reviewing or that I haven't been thinking about my next move. This thread is going to be the first (out of two) new thread ideas I have had, which I think is time to be put out there. The other one will come later...

The point of this thread is to make reviews more accessable for everybody who wants to read reviews or simply want to start a discussion about a given movie. I think this concept will create a better fundament for those who like reading lengthy reviews and for those who want it short and direct.

I'll post my first review in here soon, where I will reveal the concept
and you will get an idea of what I mean.

_________________________________

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/852cd0958675090d530851681c27bbf1397a77fb/687474703a2f2f692e696d6775722e636f6d2f4f72467a5366512e676966

[Yam12]

Nice. Looking forward to this :)

[Citizen Rules]

I like it, good idea and I subscribed to this thread too:)....so bring it on MM!

And start watching some 1930s movies will ya?

[MovieMeditation]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2016
Patriots Day
directed by Peter Berg
2

one word
Polished.

https://whataboutthetwinkie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/pd_07074_r_comp2_v02_med.jpg?w=400&h=200&crop=1

one sentence
A hollow "Hollywood version" of actual events that fails to escape its by-the-books approach and polished style, turning the otherwise goodhearted patriotic picture into a pitiful mocking of those who got injured or lost their lives during this terrible tragedy.

one paragraph
I have a complicated hate-hate-love relationship with Peter Berg and his films. His films aren't extremely awful, but usually they contain a poorly contrived story that is a confused mess in style and approach, where only the actual look and feel of the production makes it seem otherwise. He is like the "light edition" of Nolan, although that doesn't make complete sense, since Berg's films are far more sugarcoated and with little to no substance apart from its "true story" source material. He has a fetish for real life events and turning them into big, patriotic mastrubation pieces for the mainstream audience, primarily America. You could almost describe him as the "Michael Bay of serious authentic drama movies", because in some ways they have some similarities, in the heavy-handed and almost vulgar way of handling themes and dialogue...

additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
In fact, I actually enjoyed Deepwater Horizon somewhat and found it to be the best movie made by this director so far. I hated Lone Survivor though and Patriots Day seems to fall somewhere between these two. Berg can create a spectacle, he can direct his actors and he knows a thing or two about how to make movies. But his vision is so confused and weird that it messes up his good intentions. I just don't buy the emotion he tries to sell me on screen, for one, because he clouds the drama with personal views and politics, which just doesn't suit the raw emotion we are meant to feel. Second, his actors are good but the dialogue and their actions often come off as artificial or illogical, which once again takes me out of the movie.

With Patriots Day he even tries to up the realness by inserting what looks to be real video cam footage of the event - as it is happening on screen - but it feels overly forced in an attempt to stuff the drama down my throat. The best emotion and drama this entire movie delivers is at the end, when real life victims talk briefly about their story and their need to overcome life's obstacles. And when your 2+ hour movie can't even come close to two minutes of genuine emotion - or maybe just feel like a fine tribute or decent representation of the events - then you failed with your movie as far as I can see...


Question
What is your thought on this movie and movies that are based on a true story?
When does it work? When does it not? Examples?

_______________________
first-time watch

[seanc]

I haven't seen Patriots Day yet, but I will eventually. I actually liked Lone Survivor a bit, Deepwater was pretty meh. I think true stories work best when they aren't going for the realism. Social Network and Foxcatcher are the first that jump into my head. Probably not am accident that they both are about tone before they are story. I do tend to appreciate bio-pics so maybe I am not the best person to ask about when they don't work. Berg's stuff feels so paint by numbers though. Almost feels like he would be a better doc director.

[Dani8]

I haven't seen Patriots Day yet, but I will eventually. I actually liked Lone Survivor a bit, Deepwater was pretty meh.

I really liked both lone survivor and Deepwater. Not sure why I forgot to watch Ptriot's Day so just put it on my list.

[Citizen Rules]

In honor of your new thread, I'll watch Patriots Day as soon I can. It sounds like my kind of movie, so I'll give it a go and come back and let you know what I think.

[Yam12]

I'm not a big fan of Mark Wahlberg so I'm unsure as to whether or not I'll like Patriot's Day. I also haven't seen any of Peter Berg's films so I don't know what to expect if I end up watching it

[MovieMeditation]

I haven't seen Patriots Day yet, but I will eventually. I actually liked Lone Survivor a bit, Deepwater was pretty meh. I think true stories work best when they aren't going for the realism. Social Network and Foxcatcher are the first that jump into my head. Probably not am accident that they both are about tone before they are story. I do tend to appreciate bio-pics so maybe I am not the best person to ask about when they don't work. Berg's stuff feels so paint by numbers though. Almost feels like he would be a better doc director.
The problem with Lone Surivor for me, was that was so wannabe heroic and single minded that I just couldn't stand it. Most of the movie was just enemies popping up from behind the hills only to be shot and with a "die you middle eastern scumbag!" "This is for America!" And so on... it felt like a Murica! version of that game where you hit animals on the head with a hammer when they pop up from a hole...

I like realism in real event movies, but Berg polishes it too much imo and as you say does it by the numbers. I agree that those movies you mention are good not just because of tone but because they set out to make a movie. They create proper character arcs, a good story, a good script AS A LAYER on top of the fundament, that is the real story... Berg seems to just want to make a quick movie his way about others tragedy. There is not much thought put into it; gather some good actors, have a big budget, but screw the story, screw a good script, screw characters that works as anything else than plot devices...

I love bio-pics too though.

[Dani8]

I'm not a big fan of Mark Wahlberg so I'm unsure as to whether or not I'll like Patriot's Day. I also haven't seen any of Peter Berg's films so I don't know what to expect if I end up watching it

What dont you like about him? Always seems to be playing himself or something else? I like him but I think he's one note.

[Saunch]

Someone needs to stop Marky Mark before he makes his alternate reality movie where he single handedly stops 9/11.

[MovieMeditation]

Someone needs to stop Marky Mark before he makes his alternate reality movie where he single handedly stops 9/11.
:laugh:

Transformers: 9/11 Revolusurginialiation ... directed by Peter Berg starting Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg :D

[Saunch]

]Transformers: 9/11 Revolusurginialiation [/B]...

Part One.

[Camo]

Cricket kept mentioning Patriots Day and i hadn't heard of it so i assumed it had something to do with the New England Patriots :facepalm::laugh:

Yeah not seen it and most likely won't, glad you've got a new review thread going though :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

I actually liked Lone Survivor, it felt realistic to me and I felt every hit those soldiers took. Especially when they tumbled down that rock hill. It lost me a bit towards the end in the village, but for the most part it worked for me.

Haven't seen Patriot's Day yet, but if I hope it's better than Deepwater Horizon.

[MovieMeditation]

I actually liked Lone Survivor, it felt realistic to me and I felt every hit those soldiers took. Especially when they tumbled down that rock hill. It lost me a bit towards the end in the village, but for the most part it worked for me.

Haven't seen Patriot's Day yet, but if I hope it's better than Deepwater Horizon.
I loved that aspect. Indeed that worked great and was nicely done. Too bad about the rest of the film.

I have no idea how you'd like Patriots Day, but since you've watched the other Berg features I guess you'll check out that one some day... :)

[Dani8]

I actually liked Lone Survivor, it felt realistic to me and I felt every hit those soldiers took. Especially when they tumbled down that rock hill. It lost me a bit towards the end in the village, but for the most part it worked for me.

Haven't seen Patriot's Day yet, but if I hope it's better than Deepwater Horizon.

I loved the tumble down the hill.
What lost you re: scene in the village?

[MovieMeditation]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2017
mother!
directed by Darren Aronofsky
5

one word
Revelation.

http://communitynewsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/thumb_mother.jpg

one sentence
Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a chaotic yet crystal-clear vision, which pushes the limits of creativity, movie production and not least the audience's own limits and thereby creates a movie experience that is so much its own that you can help but be spellbound by it.

one paragraph
The film is best experienced as a stimulating and thought provoking piece of mind trickery, which puts the mind and soul on overtime, inside a film that strongly reflects the sparkling auteur, who Darren Aronofsky once again proves he definitely is. He challenges the movie medium itself, and its “fixed-frame workspace”, and creates a nightmarish reality, where visuals, sound and acting is unhinged and untouched... a devilish fabled dreamscape, serving as an expanded apocalyptic anecdote, all about being in the midst of the moment, inside all the chaos, while struggling to get a firm grip on Aronofsky's uncontrollable sparkle of light in subjective cinema...

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
Director, Darren Aronosky, resurrects himself from the ashes with a glowing and puzzling production, made in secret behind the backs of both the audience and the press. With the art piece, 'Mother!', Aronofsky takes us back to the beginning, where the director’s distinctive authority once again receives the right to tear down Hollywood's huge, enclosed walls in order to resurface, but without pressure from studies or high expectations from the audience.

Aronofsky plays around with cinematic elements like that consists of satirical, biblical and biographical pieces and then tosses everything into a blender, which then tears it all apart before the eyes of the audience, in the most crazy and sophisticated production I have seen in a long time – a completely insane and psychotic "split personality" of a movie production, made with so much energy and effort from the director, that the absence of straight forward logic and refined explanations doesn’t matter one bit.

Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a divine, two-hour-long trip through hell - completely without hesitation - where your brain is constantly challenged by a cascade of uncontrollable contrasts and concepts that appear faster than you are able to digest it. I would like to think that there is a storyline present, but it is stretched out far above the heads of the audience, where Aronofsky continues to hang even heavier metaphors and stronger symbolism, which eventually threatens to break and fall to the ground – but the excitement of whether it does or not is exhilarating enough on its own.

The movie is exactly as flawed as it is flawless, if it makes sense, and this is precisely what gives the film a almost demanded energy, which I happily accept with open arms – even though Aronofsky cuts both my arms off in the process and prevents me from getting close to his latest, most fragile and most extreme work to date...

Also, the performances are top notch and almost delivered with what seems to be no effort from the cast. They are naturals, acting as natural and honest as possible, selling this movie with Hollywood actors as anything but a Hollywood movie. But it is definitely a movie, that will have people wander out from the theater… but it will also leave some people in awe… and also some people in confusion. It will split the audiences and critics in an extreme way, but that is exactly what makes this so great… A mainstream movie aims to please a wide audience, but fails to center in on something truly perfect; all the while a more artistically driven movie aims to please itself first, which means the audience that it does hit, it will hit dead center. And Aronofsky did for me here…


Question
In which way can artful movies be better than mainstream, as well as the other way around? Can it be a good thing, when a film kind of loses you towards the end, simply because it is such a subjective work and dares where others don't?

_______________________
first-time watch

[Yam12]

Your rating of mother! makes me want to look forward to it even more

[Dani8]

Stunning review, MM.

[MovieMeditation]

Your rating of mother! makes me want to look forward to it even more
Understandable.

But remember... you might fall in the group who hate it... or the one who love it... who knows:D

[seanc]

Not reading review until I see it. I will be back. This weekend hopefully.

[Dani8]

Not reading review until I see it. I will be back. This weekend hopefully.

Not spoilery if that's what worries you, sean.

[Yam12]

Your rating of mother! makes me want to look forward to it even more
Understandable.

But remember... you might fall in the group who hate it... or the one who love it... who knows:D

Well I love Aronofsky so there's a high chance that I'll probably like this

[MovieMeditation]

Well I love Aronofsky so there's a high chance that I'll probably like this
There is... even though he has never been as batsh*t crazy as this. :p

[Swan]

Nice. Sounds like my kind of movie.

[Camo]

Somehow The Wrestler is the only Aronofsky i've seen. Think it has a fair amount of high points including Rourke's performance but overall i'm not a big fan. This looks interesting though.

[MovieMeditation]

Nice. Sounds like my kind of movie.
I really don't want to hype it up for ya, but yeah... I thought of you when I saw it for sure.

And you should give Black Swan a spin, Camo.

[Dani8]

Black Swan wasvexcellent

[the samoan lawyer]

Great review as usual MM. I really like Aronofsky so I'll certainly be watching this ASAP!

[Yam12]

Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream are excellent. You should get them watched Camo

[MovieMeditation]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2011
Mission: Impossible
Ghost Protocol*
directed by Brad Bird
4.5-

one word
Elevated.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1PTDiOrxODw/Tv3w5B9W3pI/AAAAAAAACf8/osHPs9glnjA/s400/ghost_protocol.jpg

one sentence
Brad Bird reanimates the long- and fast-running Tom Cruise vehicle to impossible heights, by upping the stakes, adding new characters and expanding the universe, making this the most slick, super-charged and entertaining entry in the M:I franchise yet.

one paragraph
'Ghost Protocol' is an exciting movie, which gets a welcomed face-lift from newcomer and first-time live-action director, Brad Bird, who seems to understand the universe well and how to balance it all out playfully and professionally. The humor in this one seemed spot-on, whereas the previous third outing was almost too dramatic and the newest fifth one got a little too silly at times. The one seems to even out the edges and make the movie a fun thrill ride, which by the way, might be the most exciting the franchise has ever been. The IMF is gone, the team is a mixed bag and the mission is their biggest one yet. I liked how a lot seemed to be against them this time and how things went wrong around every corner; equipment failing, unforeseen circumstances arises and Bird really makes this 'Mission: Impossible' seem truly impossible at times. The action hero always makes it, yet Brad Bird makes me actually doubt that and I gotta give it to him. Well done.

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
The stakes are elevated everywhere; even the set-pieces seem crazier and more precisely calculated than ever, with Burj Khalifa probably being the one that started this whole 'how far can Tom Cruise go' type of deal... Every set-piece is so exciting and excellently crafted,
having some of the best for the entire franchise. The opening prison outbreak, the infiltration in the Kremlin, the Burj Khalifa inside- and outside action, as well as the car park insanity at the end. It really holds some of the most exciting tension, the most thrilling action and the overall best entertainment I have had with these movies - that said though, I love most of them and every entry has something great to offer - but this one just seemed to be the most packed.

All the gadgets as well, seem to have been thought out even more thoroughly; having me excited even before they are put into use. And as I said, I love how there is a failing domino effect to this entry, especially in Burj Khalifa where everything seems to go wrong all at once, placing the audience dead center in the delusional danger happening on screen. And once again, towards the end, Brad Bird and the writers really sell the fact that Cruise and co. are up against someone that is constantly ahead of them - so far that you actually think they might have won this time. The whole missile deal was handled so well that I was sweating and praying for Cruise not to crash and die on us this time around.

I keep returning to this franchise and it is always a blast - and 'Ghost Protocol' is probably the one to get the notch for being the best. The action is so slick and inventive, the visuals and audio experience stimulate your senses and it is simply such a good time with a movie. This is my Mission, and I choose to accept it as being absolutely amazing!


Question
What's your thoughts on the franchise and your favorite one yet?
Do you like inventive action or just good old, down to earth car chases?

_______________________
*rewatch

[seanc]

I think me and you are the exact opposite on Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation, although I don't like Rogue Nation at a 4.5 clip. I love the first one, which remains my favorite, and have disliked all the others till 5. I prefer the stripped down action.

[MovieMeditation]

I think me and you are the exact opposite on Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation, although I don't like Rogue Nation at a 4.5 clip. I love the first one, which remains my favorite, and have disliked all the others till 5. I prefer the stripped down action.
You probably like Rogue Nation more because, in areas, it is close in style and approach to the first one - which you say is your favorite one. So I get that.

Personally I've just always had a thing for inventive, creative action - where I'm always able to suspend disbelief if it's well done. That's also one of the (admittedly many) things that pulls me in with the Fast films - they are also constantly trying to come up with new and exciting things to take things to the next level - but still keeps it practical and slick. Mission Impossible also seems to really try hard to come up with new and exciting gadgets and ways to build an impossible mission.

What's your favourite action movies, sean?

[iank]

I find Ghost Protocol really dull, myself, the worst in the series next to the 2nd one.
Rogue Nation replaced the first as my favourite.

[seanc]

You probably like Rogue Nation more because, in areas, it is close in style and approach to the first one - which you say is your favorite one. So I get that.

Personally I've just always had a thing for inventive, creative action - where I'm always able to suspend disbelief if it's well done. That's also one of the (admittedly many) things that pulls me in with the Fast films - they are also constantly trying to come up with new and exciting things to take things to the next level - but still keeps it practical and slick. Mission Impossible also seems to really try hard to come up with new and exciting gadgets and ways to build an impossible mission.

What's your favourite action movies, sean?


Good question, I am so not an action guy. Love the first Mission Impossible. Goldeneye is great. First Blood, Raiders Of The Lost Ark are up there.

[MovieMeditation]

I find Ghost Protocol really dull, myself, the worst in the series next to the 2nd one.
Rogue Nation replaced the first as my favourite.
Yeah, for many, it seems to be the case that Rogue Nation is a favourite or at least one of the best - or the best yet - in the franchise...

I was just so disappointed with it. It was still good fun and all, but I was disappointed. Read the longest review on the forum of the movie if you want (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1369702#post1369702). ;)

The villain was laughable, the story was the most recycled, predictable and least exciting yet and action set pieces seemed to be running out of ideas, copying from other actioners and the past movies - like the motorcycle chase "homaging" the 2nd movie and the ending "homaging" the opening of the 1st movie, for example... and a lot of the characters were so generic to me and even the ones we knew and love seemed like monotone cardboard versions of themselves - like Luther the grumpy big tech guy and Benji the stupid and scared guy and Brandt the worried and complaining guy...

And the CG and suspend of disbelief annoyed me too, more than it probably should. Tom Cruise being sucked into the airplane and breaking his back - or not - looking dumb as hell. The car flipping so artificially and the underwater scene having too much CG to be as tense as it could have. And the ending was so anti-climatic - even the director himself said he shouldn't have cut it as short as he did.


It just didn't do it for me.

[Yam12]

With Mission Impossible I've only seen Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation. I did enjoy both of them but would probably rank Ghost Protocol first.

[MovieMeditation]

With Mission Impossible I've only seen Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation. I did enjoy both of them but would probably rank Ghost Protocol first.
You should get to the rest of them, Yam. They all got something great to offer and boosts some of the most iconic action or tension-filled scenes in cinema.

[MovieMeditation]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2017
The Hitman's
Bodyguard
directed by Patrick Hughes
2.5-

one word
Confused.

https://backafterthis.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-hitmans-bodyguard-movie-reynolds-and-jackson.jpg?w=400&h=200&crop=1

one sentence
Hitman's Bodyguard hits up two of the biggest acting assassins in the game, from two very different styles and times, who slay every comedic moment they come by, yet the movie somehow fails to find its funny bone inside broken bones, blood spatter, bad romance and a very confused script.

one paragraph
Director Patrick Hughes doesn't have the greatest track record and he seems to struggle to reach his big break-through, Red Hill, from 2010. He directed The Expendables 3, which was nothing to write home about, and now he takes on full-blown action-comedy with some of the biggest and best to ever do it. With that cast, how can you fail? Somehow Hughes manages to do just that, by having a confused and cramped up script that doesn't allow the actors nor their comedy to breathe properly. Instead the movie wants to send some kind of political message - or at least a way too worked up wannabe version of that - inside a film that finds time for too much nonsense instead of picking a direct path. The movie seemed to be a comedy, yet it is way too serious and overly dramatic for that. And by the end of it, the movie seems to hint that it was a romantic comedy all along, inside a very bloated crime-thriller slash buddy-comedy B-movie. I don't get it. What a waste.

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
It is truly a shame that such great talents go to waste because the movie appearently wants to wreck itself before it even gets started. It is nice to see Samuel L. Jackson back slangin' one-note bad language, but not even that can save a script that seems to hold the man down or dictate him his lines and personality instead of letting the expert handle things with expertise... Reynolds make a big comeback, so to speak, with Deadpool, where he really got to work on his crooked comedy and charming trash-talk. He does a lot of the same here, but he also seems held back by a bloated script and fragmented tonal style.

The logic in the movie also got on my nerves a few times; like when Jackson didn't know a phone could be tracked. Like, come on. Sure, the dude's old school - but tracking was possible in the god damn 80-90s. I'll let that slide though. But what I won't let slide, is when Jackson (almost) escapes Reynolds early in the movie and somehow he manages to pull an even dumber excuse later in the movie, to leave the room and escape. Only so a sort of important scene could take place. The movie often seems written for the plot points, and not the other way around, which really brings the movie down. Last logic side note; Reynolds also holds a god damn nail gun, and uses it to perfection, yet chooses not to use it more than once so that the director can spice things up a bit with some other action. Meh.

Admittedly, a lot of the action looks nice, partly because it is practical and also because some of the funnies and best moments with the characters comes in the midst of the madness. That is kind of what I wanted more of - comedy that came from out of a situation and not artificially made into a situation. This movie should have been A LOT better than it was. What a shame.


Question
Can you relate to the feeling of comedy coming off as too scripted and stale?
What are other movies ruined by such script and/or where great talents were brought down by bad guidance/production?

_______________________

[edarsenal]

Gonna hafta think about this one, and yes, Hitman's Bodyguard should have been better than it was and yes, it did seemed held back or going through a basic 101 plot check list for hit movies for idiots. Saying that, I did ENJOY the movie all the same.


Also, Ghost Protocol was a very positive revive for the MI series and it's my favorite with the first coming in by a very close second. Simply because it had the "feel" of the old tv show with intrigue playing front and center with the action being an additional flavor to the stew, as it were.
Can't say I have a specific style for action. As long as it's done well, I'm for it. Fighting, shooting, car chases, insane scenarios. . . though the last is a bit of a razor's edge that can cause more pain than pleasure depending.

[Dani8]

Gonna hafta think about this one, and yes, Hitman's Bodyguard should have been better than it was and yes, it did seemed held back or going through a basic 101 plot check list for hit movies for idiots. Saying that, I did ENJOY the movie all the same.


Also, Ghost Protocol was a very positive revive for the MI series and it's my favorite with the first coming in by a very close second. Simply because it had the "feel" of the old tv show with intrigue playing front and center with the action being an additional flavor to the stew, as it were.
Can't say I have a specific style for action. As long as it's done well, I'm for it. Fighting, shooting, car chases, insane scenarios. . . though the last is a bit of a razor's edge that can cause more pain than pleasure depending.
We can't be friends anymore, Edar. I will not have you sully my favourite murder couple of all time. Mofo!

[edarsenal]

We can't be friends anymore, Edar. I will not have you sully my favourite murder couple of all time. Mofo!
I am heartbroken :( TRULY
but, to quote Horton the Elephant: I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.
And it includes both this AND what I said in my post in Last Movie Seen thread about how hot it was hearing Salma swearing in both English and Spanish. Loved her since Desperado and always will.
And for as much as I've enjoyed HB (seen it three times now) I do see MM's points.

[seanc]

Question
Can you relate to the feeling of comedy coming off as too scripted and stale?
What are other movies ruined by such script and/or where great talents were brought down by bad guidance/production?

_______________________[/CENTER]

Yes, and Deadpool.

[Dani8]

I am bereft at your heartbreak my friend. Come hither and I shall soothe it by singing that ridiculous nuns/ drinking song. I learnt the lyrics to sing a message on my brothers phone. He said it was the best rendition he had ever heard.

OMG Salma. A true pocket rocket goddess, and she rubbed her delicious boobage on my brother while declaring undying love. I'm turned on.

[edarsenal]

nuns drinking song?
I have GOT to hear this!!

[Dani8]

nuns drinking song?
I have GOT to hear this!!
Samuel is singing with the nuns while Ryan looks like his ears are bleeding. Will post shortly for your entertainment

[Dani8]

My god that man is beautiful, and he just keeps getting more and more handsome with age.

ONE MORE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5sgmG_ZHn0

[edarsenal]

never thought of that as a drinking song.

I misunderstood and thought you knew a nun drinking song. Ya know, like the Drunken Sailor Song that answers it's own question: What do you do with a drunken sailor?

[Dani8]

Bevilo tutto!

[MovieMeditation]

Thanks for the comments, edarsenal and Dani8 - and yeah, Selma is always sexy, But I didn't find her forced foul mouthed attitude to be that great, unfortunately. Glad you like M:I-4 too, ed.

Yes, and Deadpool.
Haha, yeah, for best or for worse, that is probably the most forced film ever made. :laugh:

[cricket]

I have to disagree with you on Patriot's Day. The only issue I have with it is the composite character played by Marky Mark, but I understand why they did it and otherwise everything is very accurate. It's also a respectful movie towards the victims and survivors. Any real life person who did not want to be portrayed, wasn't. There is some corny dialogue like "if we don't get these guys they're going to do it to someone else", but of course this is how people talk. I also thought Lone Survivor was pretty awesome. Some of your words tell me you may have a bias against patriotic American movies, but at least in the case of Patriot's Day, that's how the actual event went down. I would think any movie from any country about an attack against them would contain patriotism. I don't understand why that's an American thing, yet you're not the only person I've heard this general view from.

I'm looking forward to Mother. I just heard of it for the first time a couple of days ago.

[MovieMeditation]

I have to disagree with you on Patriot's Day. The only issue I have with it is the composite character played by Marky Mark, but I understand why they did it and otherwise everything is very accurate.
It may be accurate in terms of which actual parts of the events they portray, but it's more how they portray them that annoys me. Even for the inserted hand-held camera scenes, Berg still fails to make what is happening believable to me. He takes things on too simple, too surfaced or too cinematic, failing to make me buy into this film as something deeper than a Hollywood cash-grab or "pat on the back" picture.

It's also a respectful movie towards the victims and survivors. Any real life person who did not want to be portrayed, wasn't.
So they respected who they included in the film, but though they might have gone for a respectful portroyal of the characters, it didn't work for me. The Chinese guy was pretty good, but the rest of the characters were so bland and didn't leave much impact at all. They felt like they were "there" because they were in real life, but not because they actually did much for the story. It felt too forced to have check-list characters like that - the couple who got split up and had to reunite; the boy and father who got split up and had to reunite; the death of a young boy so the impact feels greater and so on...

Some of your words tell me you may have a bias against patriotic American movies, but at least in the case of Patriot's Day, that's how the actual event went down.
I wouldn't say I necessarily have a "bias" towards such movies, but sure I do find them missing the mark most of the times. Whatever movie, the event always seem so dramatized and "set up" and you can always devide the movie into HEROES and ENEMIES (yes in capitals) and it always seem to be more a product made to please the inner patriotism and hail the heroes of the day in such a glorified way that it almost because disrespectful sometimes, because of the overly dramatic way it is done.

You keep saying "that's how it actually went down". Sure, I know the basic story and such, but a movie isn't good just because it follows the real-life story that it is actually based on. That's kind of a given and what you expect from it really... It's more the approach and stylistic choices of a true story movie that sets it apart.

Greengrass' United 93 is a great example of such movie done excellently. The movie seems to be about ordinary people and it doesn't glorify one side or the other. The terrorists are not portrayed much differently than the heroes and the heroic acts come off as natural because of Greengrass' unbiased documenting approach. There is no real "hero moment" with an American flag in the backround or some patriotic remarks. The heroes are hailed as individual human beings and not as superhumans or action heroes, like it can often be the case.

I remember you saying something about you living in Boston/knowing Boston or whatever it was, so doesn't that mean you could have some bias yourself towards the event? The movie is almost made for you then, because you were actually there or know more about the event first hand than I do? In the same way you could say I'm not an expert on the topic and therefore my criticism can be faulty. But really I'm just judging the movie, not the event. And I don't like the movie or how Berg makes movies. So if anything, it's more a bias against Berg than patriotic movies.

Whether you agree or not, I did say "turning the otherwise goodhearted patriotic picture into a pitiful mocking of those who got injured" - so I actually think the starting point is fine and patriotic movies in its concept doesn't annoy more; though most of the times the execution just don't suit me.

I would think any movie from any country about an attack against them would contain patriotism. I don't understand why that's an American thing, yet you're not the only person I've heard this general view from.
I guess it is in the nature of being an American to be very proud and have big arm moments about being an American. FREEDOM! and all that. I'm not saying all Americans are that way or that being an American is so simple in its nature, but more than others especially their movies seem to scream out a certain proudness of who they are and where they come from. In movies, that often comes off as cheesy or embarrassing to me.

So yeah, patriotism is not an American thing, but it has kind of become associated with America a lot because of the way it is viewed from outside the country itself. So I guess you could also say because I'm not an American, I don't understand the way you guys go about talking and being proud of who you are. Nations are different, countries are different, I might just not understand how you go about it.

I'm looking forward to Mother. I just heard of it for the first time a couple of days ago.
You should. You could very well end up liking it. At least some parts seem right up your alley! :)

[Dani8]

I have to disagree with you on Patriot's Day. The only issue I have with it is the composite character played by Marky Mark, but I understand why they did it and otherwise everything is very accurate. It's also a respectful movie towards the victims and survivors. Any real life person who did not want to be portrayed, wasn't. There is some corny dialogue like "if we don't get these guys they're going to do it to someone else", but of course this is how people talk. I also thought Lone Survivor was pretty awesome. Some of your words tell me you may have a bias against patriotic American movies, but at least in the case of Patriot's Day, that's how the actual event went down. I would think any movie from any country about an attack against them would contain patriotism. I don't understand why that's an American thing, yet you're not the only person I've heard this general view from.

I'm looking forward to Mother. I just heard of it for the first time a couple of days ago.

I dont mind patriotism in American movies because for me it actually does rep[resent a huge part of the big culture over there, but this movie left me a little flat. I didnt dislike it but wont be rushing back for a rewatch any time soon. I agree that is was respectful to the victims, though, but I didnt connect with any of the characters. Not sure how else it could have been done, though. I like the doco feel of it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

With an 'F' Cinema Score, you're the first extremely positive review I've seen for mother!.

[MovieMeditation]

With an 'F' Cinema Score, you're the first extremely positive review I'm seen for mother!.
What is this Cinema Score I keep seeing? Yet another nonsensical mass measurement of a movie's quality?

But if we go about that then a 68% fresh score on rotten tomatoes and a 74/100 on metacritic doesn't sound bad to me.

Anyways, mother is a very subjective, edgy art film... it's bound to split audiences - especially since it got Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence in it... I don't think the target audience for those actors is the same as those for Aronofsky and a lot of people will probably be disappointed based on that group alone.

Personally I've seen a lot of positive feedback for the movie all over. But yeah, it's a diversive movie.

[Camo]

What is this Cinema Score I keep seeing? Yet another nonsensical mass measurement of a movie's quality?



Yeah i'm not sure why this would be a good indicator of quality:

It surveys film audiences to rate their viewing experiences with letter grades, reports the results, and forecasts box office receipts based on the data.

It's not exactly extensive either:

CinemaScore typically receives about 400 cards per film

I haven't seen it yet but if i understand it right it's not a conventional film so it should be no surprise that a small sample of general audiences aren't responding well.

Here's (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/review-mother-is-a-once-in-a-lifetime-film-whatever-that-means-to-you/article36248618/) a four star review. I haven't read it because i haven't seen the film but it has gotten some great reviews as well as some mixed and bad, exactly what you'd expect for that type of film.

[TheUsualSuspect]

What is this Cinema Score I keep seeing? Yet another nonsensical mass measurement of a movie's quality?

But if we go about that then a 68% fresh score on rotten tomatoes and a 74/100 on metacritic doesn't sound bad to me.

It's just another case of critics opinions vs audience opinions. Again, look at RT, the audience score is 42%.

I found it interesting that this film is only one of 12 to get an F rating. It joins I Know Who Killed Me, The Wicker Man, Alone in the Dark, The Devil Inside and oddly Killing Them Softly, among others. That's why I was bringing it up.

In any event, any review of a film is a nonsensical measurement of a movie's quality. Your review included.


Yeah i'm not sure why this would be a good indicator of quality


Again, simply to show the disconnect between audiences and critics.

People are complaining that mother! was marketed as something it isn't. Much like It Comes At Night another film liked by critics and hated by audiences. Maybe the problem lies within the marketing of such movies.

[MovieMeditation]

TheUsualSuspect Sure, my review is too, but I'd rather trust someone with interest in film - the people on this forum for example - than a random collection of casual movie goers. That's the same people who wreck good films when a studio brings in a test audience to respond to specific cuts of films... that usually ends up with them wanting more of what the universally likable movie is. So therefore, a Cinema Score for mother! seems not to be of much use imo.

I've seen a few trailers for mother! after watching it and I don't think it's marketed wrong. It seems like a vague marketing of a complex film, but what can you do... The film is tough to market on the premise alone and without spoiling anything it's even harder.

Anyways, with artsy films like this I never listen to audience scores. Critics are better to look at in this case. You could say audience scores are never really a good indicator but you know... art films it's just an even worse indicator.

[TheUsualSuspect]

TheUsualSuspect Sure, my review is too, but I'd rather trust someone with interest in film - the people on this forum for example - than a random collection of casual movie goers.

I don't think reactions like that can be completely ignored though. At least look at all aspects of the reaction spectrum before writing it off as unimportant.

[MovieMeditation]

I don't think reactions like that can be completely ignored though. At least look at all aspects of the reaction spectrum before writing it off as unimportant.
I am looking at all aspects... and then I write it off as unimportant. :)

I have seen the audience score, I've heard the response, but it's the same old same old for movies like this... Therefore I don't find it to mean much. :shrug:

Art films are so diverse. It's subjective, stylistic filmmaking heavy on morals and themes before story and structure. It's bound to split people, especially the "general moviegoer". That's how I see it.

It's fine if people want to listen to that stuff and watch movies based on such people and responses. I just personally don't.

[TheUsualSuspect]

If you say so. :p

[MovieMeditation]

http://www.troll.me/images/monocle-guy/i-do-say-so-indeed-thumb.jpg

[Camo]

Yeah i'd never listen to an audience score for anything that wasn't completely conventional. Even if i was to Cinema Score uses a tiny sample size so i'd look for something more extensive.

I don't really look for peoples reactions before deciding to watch something anyway, sometimes i will look at what some people i know have similar tastes to me think about a film that's getting alot of buzz which i'm skeptical about, most of the time i already know whether i want to see it or not though.

[Yoda]

I simultaneously believe that audience reaction should not be dispositive...and that a really extreme audience reaction in either direction is usually significant.

[MovieMeditation]

I simultaneously believe that audience reaction should not be dispositive...and that a really extreme audience reaction in either direction is usually significant.
I agree.

It was mainly the discussion about Cinema Score - a collection of a mere 400 people's opinion gathered into a letter grade - that didn't do it for me.

I was actually just about to respond to Camo about my own way of finding out what to watch - and in that response I was going to mention how I do use audience scores, for starters, for many of the movies I watch by looking at IMDb, for example, and then anything below or very close to 6 I will not watch - unless it's an extreme case. Sure, I might miss out on a personal favorite, but the chances are truly slim.

So whenever a movie is hyped up to 11 I'm usually interested and whenever a movie gets a really low score I usually stay away. As an extension to this method, I obviously use trailers, plot synopsises, directors and whatnot to decide whether it's a movie for me or not.

So yes, in each end of the scale there at least the audience response can be a usable indicator.

[Swan]

I don't think the Cinemascore for mother! is nearly as important as how batsh*t insane and polarizing the word of mouth has actually been. It's the craziest response to a movie I think I've ever seen. An F seems to indicate universal hatred, which I feel is incorrect with this movie. People are all over the freaking place with this movie - I have seen probably every reaction a movie can have regarding this one alone - and I have a feeling that's exactly what Aronofsky wanted. And it's not the first film I personally find good that Cinemascore has given an F to. I don't know their process in rating films but I think it's a bogus indicator on whether or not a movie is actually worthwhile.

[MovieMeditation]

I don't think the Cinemascore for mother! is nearly as important as how batsh*t insane and polarizing the word of mouth has actually been. It's the craziest response to a movie I think I've ever seen. An F seems to indicate universal hatred, which I feel is incorrect with this movie. People are all over the freaking place with this movie - I have seen probably every reaction a movie can have regarding this one alone - and I have a feeling that's exactly what Aronofsky wanted. And it's not the first film I personally find good that Cinemascore has given an F to. I don't know their process in rating films but I think it's a bogus indicator on whether or not a movie is actually worthwhile.
Definitely.

And not only is the general response so diverse it's insane, even my own response paralleled just that. I felt so worked up and torn and split and messed around with that I just didn't know what to think - and I loved that. I loved the reaction Aronofsky pulled from me. It's the most extreme experience I've had with a movie in quite a while, and for that he deserves the recognition - whether that'll be awful or amazing.

As many here know I write for a Danish film site, which I have been doing since 2015... we have a rating system where we use an average between 4 different indicators - story, acting, visuals and sound - which you probably know since that's also how I organize my Cinema Reviews, which are reworked versions of my Danish reviews.

Anyways, the point is... Aronofsky's 'mother!' is the first film I have given "full house" in every single department, while writing for the site since 2015. Boyhood, Whiplash and Manchester by the Sea are movies that ended up averaging a "full house", when you round up that is, but 'mother!' was the first I awarded "perfection" all the way around. In a way, because the movie isn't perfect, is why I think this was the movie to finally deserve that full rating. 'mother!' is such a refreshing, boundary pushing movie for cinema. And it's needed now more than ever...

[Citizen Rules]

Promises made ~ Promises kept! I watched Patriots Day and reviewed it too. Just for fun, I'll add some of my thoughts side by side with yours:p I hadn't read any reviews, including yours before writing my own.

2016
Patriots Day
one word Polished.My one word was: Boo

https://whataboutthetwinkie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/pd_07074_r_comp2_v02_med.jpg?w=400&h=200&crop=1
Hey I used the same damn photo:p That's funny, it is a good establishing photo for a review, great minds think alike!

one sentence
A hollow "Hollywood version" of actual events that fails to escape its by-the-books approach and polished style, turning the otherwise goodhearted patriotic picture into a pitiful mocking of those who got injured or lost their lives during this terrible tragedy.Bravo and I felt the same.
My one sentence:

The 12 minute style documentary epilogue doesn't redeem the director's lame decision to turn a tragic real event, into a lame ass action movie.

one paragraph
I have a complicated hate-hate-love relationship with Peter Berg and his films. His films aren't extremely awful, but usually they contain a poorly contrived story that is a confused mess in style and approach, where only the actual look and feel of the production makes it seem otherwise. He is like the "light edition" of Nolan, although that doesn't make complete sense, since Berg's films are far more sugarcoated and with little to no substance apart from its "true story" source material. He has a fetish for real life events and turning them into big, patriotic mastrubation pieces for the mainstream audience, primarily America. You could almost describe him as the "Michael Bay of serious authentic drama movies", because in some ways they have some similarities, in the heavy-handed and almost vulgar way of handling themes and dialogue...I like what you wrote there. I don't have a similar paragraph, but I'm on board with "a confused mess in style and approach"



With Patriots Day he even tries to up the realness by inserting what looks to be real video cam footage of the event - as it is happening on screen - but it feels overly forced in an attempt to stuff the drama down my throat. Agreed, I wrote:
I hated the way the first 30 minutes was filmed...It looked like a Showtime TV show...with lots of close-ups of the actors, while using a hand held camera with very short scene length. It just looked like cheap film making.


The best emotion and drama this entire movie delivers is at the end, when real life victims talk briefly about their story and their need to overcome life's obstacles. And when your 2+ hour movie can't even come close to two minutes of genuine emotion - or maybe just feel like a fine tribute or decent representation of the events - then you failed with your movie as far as I can see...Amen, that's how I felt too...

Oh I gave Patriots Day a rating_1 mostly because the way Peter Berg misused his subject matter, turning a real life crisis into a Hollywood CG Blockbuster, pissed me off.

[MovieMeditation]

Citizen Rules phew, glad we agree. I was afraid that with some odd miracle you'd like it. :D

But my senses mostly told me you wouldn't. Glad I was right. :p Yep, not a good movie... I'm gonna check out your review! Thanks for checking in here, CR, and posting such detailed thoughts. Appreciate it!

[Gatsby]

I think I'll like mother! (huge Aronofsky fan here), but I'm also afraid of it being the pretentious poser film so many reviewers claim it to be. I did like Noah when everyone else I knew hated it though, the difference being that the reaction to it wasn't as polarized. Anticipation and terror at the same time for me.

Great thread so far Meds!

[MovieMeditation]

I think I'll like mother! (huge Aronofsky fan here), but I'm also afraid of it being the pretentious poser film so many reviewers claim it to be. I did like Noah when everyone else I knew hated it though, the difference being that the reaction to it wasn't as polarized. Anticipation and terror at the same time for me.

Great thread so far Meds!
Thanks, Gats. I missed you around here!

I think you'll like mother! It's a rollercoaster ride full of more ideas and concepts than what is explained but that's what makes it exciting. It's mind f*ck made with flair.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I agree.

It was mainly the discussion about Cinema Score - a collection of a mere 400 people's opinion gathered into a letter grade - that didn't do it for me.

I was actually just about to respond to Camo about my own way of finding out what to watch - and in that response I was going to mention how I do use audience scores, for starters, for many of the movies I watch by looking at IMDb, for example, and then anything below or very close to 6 I will not watch - unless it's an extreme case. Sure, I might miss out on a personal favorite, but the chances are truly slim.

So whenever a movie is hyped up to 11 I'm usually interested and whenever a movie gets a really low score I usually stay away. As an extension to this method, I obviously use trailers, plot synopsises, directors and whatnot to decide whether it's a movie for me or not.

So yes, in each end of the scale there at least the audience response can be a usable indicator.


IMDB is not a good indicator either though. You have fanboys and crazy people hate rating all the time. When the boards were still up, there were wars to give films ratings of 1's and 10's.

Look at The Promise starring Christian Bale and Oscar Isaac about the Armenian Genocide. You have a war of people there who deny such an event rating the film a 1 and others rating it a 10.


82,000+ votes gave it a 10

66,000+ votes gave it a 1

It has a weighted average of 6.0 on IMDB.

This tells me nothing about the film and you clearly stated that you will avoid it because of the rating.


Extreme case? Maybe, but this happened a lot. Heck, there was a war to see which movie would be #1 on the top 250. Heck, there is this whole DC vs Marvel rating system going on too.

I just don't see how you can say that an audience reaction is not worth your time, then say that you look to IMDB of all places to see if you would watch a movie or not. Seems counterproductive.

[MovieMeditation]

IMDB is not a good indicator either though. You have fanboys and crazy people hate rating all the time. When the boards were still up, there were wars to give films ratings of 1's and 10's.

Look at The Promise starring Christian Bale and Oscar Isaac about the Armenian Genocide. You have a war of people there who deny such an event rating the film a 1 and others rating it a 10.


82,000+ votes gave it a 10

66,000+ votes gave it a 1

It has a weighted average of 6.0 on IMDB.

This tells me nothing about the film and you clearly stated that you will avoid it because of the rating.


Extreme case? Maybe, but this happened a lot. Heck, there was a war to see which movie would be #1 on the top 250. Heck, there is this whole DC vs Marvel rating system going on too.

I just don't see how you can say that an audience reaction is not worth your time, then say that you look to IMDB of all places to see if you would watch a movie or not. Seems counterproductive.
I thought this discussion was kind of over. Oh well,

You keep jumping to conclusions, looking over the details. That's not exactly enforcing your arguments...

I never said audience reactions were not worth my time, I said that the Cinema Score thing - consisting of too few people and a far too narrow group and basis for a trustable reception, imo - was too slim and that it gave poor impression of a movie's quality. Also, most of the discussion, I referred to audience scores in relation to art films, which are very subjective and edgy movies and per definition won't appeal to the mass audience and therefore a audience score for such movie comes cross as pretty insignificant.

I also said that one "could say audience scores are never really a good indicator", so obviously I'm agreeing to the fact that IMDb is also faulty. But IMDb is the biggest of them all, so at least it's not a terrible indicator when a movie gets past 100-200.000 ratings - by then you'll have a pretty decent picture of how a movie appeal to the mass, diverse audience and most of the 1-rating/10-rating stuff is evened out, the more people rate the movie.

That said, as I mentioned, I never listen blindly to audience scores. Together with the audience response, critic response, friends, family, people with similar taste, trailers, directors/writers etc. I use all those to come to a conclusion about whether the given movie is for me. I've done this a long time now and I know the positives and negatives about each indicator - especially that of IMDb. Therefore I also kind of know how those ratings can fluctuate; how the entire crew of a blockbuster will rate it 10/10 to boost ratings, how mass-hate will define early or overall response, how superhero movies and Nolan movies always get high marks etc.

I feel like I know IMDb well and therefore also its faults, so I can still use it as a "helper" of sorts, to narrow things down a bit. I never trust it completely. I never trust anyone completely about movies I might like. But IMDb can be part of the bigger picture helping me decide, so I'm not completely blind as to what's going on.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I thought this discussion was kind of over. Oh well,



Interesting. For someone who wants people to read his reviews and engage in conversation in his threads it's odd for you to causally dismiss such conversation. :rolleyes:

[MovieMeditation]

Interesting. For someone who wants people to read his reviews and engage in conversation in his threads it's odd for you to causally dismiss such conversation. :rolleyes:
For someone who wants to keep the discussion going it's odd for you to casually and constantly dismiss the actual arguments I make in exchange for short or snide sentences. :rolleyes:


You sure you logged into the right profile? I thought I was speaking to RedFoot for second there...

[TheUsualSuspect]

For someone who wants to keep the discussion going it's odd for you to casually and constantly dismiss the actual arguments I make in exchange for short or snide sentences. :rolleyes:


You sure you logged into the right profile? I thought I was speaking to RedFoot for second there...

Nah, it's just the pretentious tone in your posts that make you seem like you're better than the conversation at hand that does it. "I thought we were done...oh well" comes off as I should be thankful that you're taking time to belittle me.

I never dismissed any arguments, but you saying that I jump over whatever 'logical' argument you had is an effort to belittle what I brought to the table. It's an ineffective way of debating a topic when you have nothing to really say.

As for me trying to keep the discussion going? I was responding to your reply to other people. You brought up IMDB, which is a different sub discussion. Once I saw the condescending reply, I decided to disregard the discussion and point that out.

I get it, you're a 'critic' and we should be thankful for your higher insight into film. :p

Also regrading Redfoot, you're more than welcome to look at those posts to see how you went after me first and the response was mere retaliation. But I'm not going to really dive into the past with that. That's over and done with.

I try to make an effort to engage in discussion with whatever you're reviewing, whenever I have the chance. I, like you, enjoy debate about films, but this isn't that. So take care.

[MovieMeditation]

TheUsualSuspect

I don't want this either, but I feel like you're asking for it. I don't like YOUR tone either. I don't think I'm better, but you just keep being so stubborn about your own point of view it tips over into some kind of hostile pestilence type of arguing. I don't like that. I only replied in the same manner you did with my last reply.


I never dismissed any arguments
You replied with "whatever you say" to the last post on the Cinema Score stuff, instead of replying to my points. Then later I made more points, and explained myself, and you got hostile.

but you saying that I jump over whatever 'logical' argument you had is an effort to belittle what I brought to the table. It's an ineffective way of debating a topic when you have nothing to really say.
What I mean is you keep replying to a small amount of what my reply consisted of... Like, if I make an argument on art films, Cinema Score and whatnot, and say audience scores don't matter in that case, you conclude that I said audience scores never matter and that I'm counter-arguing and whatnot... Can't you see that can piss someone off the way you just make up your own conclusions? Take something that is 75% truth and then randomly makes up the last 25% yourself to have a stronger argument? That annoys me, I can tell you.

when you have nothing to really say
Oh really? I have nothing to say? Okay.

As for me trying to keep the discussion going? I was responding to your reply to other people. You brought up IMDB, which is a different sub discussion. Once I saw the condescending reply, I decided to disregard the discussion and point that out.
It's just that the discussion seemed over, and though a "sub discussion" it's a lot of the same thing really, and to me it seemed like you couldn't let things go from yesterday about us not agreeing with you on the Cinema Score deal. That's what I took from it. If that's wrong, well I misunderstood.

I get it, you're a 'critic' and we should be thankful for your higher insight into film. :p
Okay. So we're on this level now... aha...

Also regrading Redfoot, you're more than welcome to look at those posts to see how you went after me first and the response was mere retaliation. But I'm not going to really dive into the past with that. That's over and done with.
I'm glad you are done with it. Just doesn't seem like it it. You kind of piss me off in the same way your RedFoot persona did, which you couldn't see then and can't see now.

I try to make an effort to engage in discussion with whatever you're reviewing, whenever I have the chance. I, like you, enjoy debate about films, but this isn't that. So take care.
I had a hard time accepting your behaviour with RedFoot, whether you think it was me who was in the wrong and not you. But I eventually did. I began reading your reviews too. Accepting who you were.

[TheUsualSuspect]

MovieMeditation

Despite what you may think, I have no ill will towards you. I read your reviews and like them. Yes, sometimes I will deal out a low blow when I think the person is being an ass, which was what my 'critic' comment was. So I apologize for that.

It just seems, to me at least, that your responses come off as snobbish sometimes and THAT gets to me, which is why I respond the way I do. Which is why I think the original Redfoot fight got out of hand.

I don't know what 'I began reading your reviews, accepting who you are' means, but I won't get into it.

I don't want to fight. So I'll just leave it there.

Cheers.

[MovieMeditation]

MovieMeditation

Despite what you may think, I have no ill will towards you. I read your reviews and like them. Yes, sometimes I will deal out a low blow when I think the person is being an ass, which was what my 'critic' comment was. So I apologize for that.

It just seems, to me at least, that your responses come off as snobbish sometimes and THAT gets to me, which is why I respond the way I do. Which is why I think the original Redfoot fight got out of hand.

I don't know what 'I began reading your reviews, accepting who you are' means, but I won't get into it.

I don't want to fight. So I'll just leave it there.

Cheers.
The highlighted means nothing than what it reads - I didn't like you as a person after the RedFoot deal, I began looking at your main profile - this one - differently and sometimes I felt like the persona from the past moved over to here. And again, whoever was wrong and that could as much been me and thereby my own fault, but it took its toll on me with the RedFoot deal. I didn't trust a few people on here for a while and especially you because of that past.

So I simply mean that, after a while, I began accepting your personality and who you were here and how you acted and began to see way past what was once a thing. That's simply what I mean, nothing else.

Glad you apologized, because that was the main one that got me. Anyways, completely objectively (or I'll try), what I think happened here is that we had a conversation on a topic and each made our points, but next to the main discussion there seemed to be an unintended "subtle subtext-argument" where certain sentences and remarks was interpreted wrong by each of us and we thought the other person was being hostile, holy, rude or whatnot. And that span it out of control.

I'll apologize too for whatever I might have said to offend you, because it wasn't my intention, I simply acted on what I thought was a tone or a way of arguing that wasn't completely friendly or with proper purpose to the discussion.


Maybe as a plus on top of this, now we know our differences, ways of arguing and interpreting each other. Maybe that'll actually make things like this less likely to happen again in the future. :up:

[MovieMeditation]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2014
Noah
directed by Darren Aronofsky
4-

one word
Injustice.

http://www.flowgalindez.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/noah-header-400x200.jpg

one sentence
Darren Aronofsky dares to tell his own version of sacred source material and gets withheld by the studio and wrecked by the audience, with a film that fumbles to stay faithful to either one or the other and ends up with something in between, which has enough ideas to keep things interesting and enough entertainment to make things elevated, yet neither as a product of Aronofsky nor the studio does it really work as a whole, despite still being a more fascinating blockbuster though a less successful Aronofsky feature.

one paragraph
‘Noah’ is directed by the autonomous and artful director, Darren Aronofsky, who has stepped onto sacred territory with his atheistic footprint of which is neither of Christian descent or belief. It is an experimental film, inspired by biblical stories though not exactly based upon them. Aronofsky tells the story the way he wants to and one can choose to either see this as really brave or really stupid. Usually, movies based on pre-existing source material holds a lot of liberations, yet somehow when it comes to a biblical tale, people want it to be as faithful as possible. I admire Aronofsky for taking the essentials of the tale and tamper around with it in a way that sets it apart from all else. Unfortunately, the studio clearly intervened here and 'Noah' does certainly feel exactly like a big budget blockbuster made by a visionary art-director, which is also why even the fragmented mind of Aronofsky is still more interesting than your usual dose of deafening, monotone, mass productions out there. Overall I find the hate for this movie to be unfair.

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
There is a lot to like here, despite how it might not add up to a complete work, and I find a lot of fascinating things in the story and the way that it is told. I like earthy, deserted setting where the movie takes place; really setting the film apart from other biblical tales. You get a feeling of a world without hope, a world that is lost and has gone mad and lost everything in the process. There is nothing left; it is a bare-boned life and struggle for survival. It is almost like a medieval movie with a biblical twist. Also, the imagery going on is beautiful. The stark constrasts of the color-free world set to the dreamy nightmares and foreshadowings and the flashbacks of a better world and the beginning of life itself. The timelapse sequences are some of the most impressive and inventive things I have seen in a while and the sense of dread and death is truly captivating.

I also like how the story basically turns into Noah being a twisted maniac - this is not some biblical story about a great man and his great doings - this is actually a MAN who is struggling to live up to his tasks from God and goes more and more mad with every new day and every new task that comes down upon him. The acting is also superb all around and overall the production value isn't at fault here... It is a beautiful looking and sounding movie.

Rock monsters... Yes, we had to go there. I don't hate them with a passion, but sure, I wish they weren't there if I had to choose. The idea of falling angels being doomed to an awful, eternal life on earth is cool and all, but the execution and place in the story is written to make sense, not the other way around. They do have a purpose in the story, but the execution is weird and they feel pretty misplaced. But again, I don't hate them. There is some clichés in the story, especially towards the end, but overall I find this to be a fascinating disaster of a movie... in more than one sense of the word. It's a fun spectacle, a miscalculated movie from the mind of a very talented director. I saw it in 3D, with a great sound system, and the movie is quite the experience. And again, I'd rather watch this than another conventional blockbuster. I do believe there has been some injustice to this film. It isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.


Question
What movies can you think of where the director failed to deliver his vision?
How many liberations can you take with a movie based on pre-existing material?
Is the bible and religion in general just more sacred ground?

_______________________

Rewatch

[edarsenal]

have not seen Noah, and at some point, I just might. Thoroughly enjoyed the review and it does push me closer to seeing it. Thank you.

Coming up blank about failed visions and when it comes to liberations I do have trouble with them. After reading Brown's book I was thoroughly agitated with the movie Angels & Demons. B!tched and complained the ENTIRE movie.
Another that comes to mind is The Hobbit turned into a trilogy/prequel to Lord of the Rings, which is one that I honestly try to lessen my anger and simply enjoy it for what it is; fan fiction.
Seeing new twists on old stories, like Grimm Fairy Tales to such as Dracula and so forth I do actually enjoy (depending on the caliber of the movie itself) which I think has to do more with having seen quite a number of movie versions already, so, seeing a new angle makes seeing another movie version worthwhile.

Can't really answer the sacred ground situation properly. Any religion is gonna get enraged if its cast in anything less than an ideal light and delving deeper into that subject is for more intellectual minds than myself.

[Swan]

I love the rock monsters! I wish they were lobsters instead though.

Rock lobster!

[cricket]

It may be accurate in terms of which actual parts of the events they portray, but it's more how they portray them that annoys me. Even for the inserted hand-held camera scenes, Berg still fails to make what is happening believable to me. He takes things on too simple, too surfaced or too cinematic, failing to make me buy into this film as something deeper than a Hollywood cash-grab or "pat on the back" picture.

One of the things that impressed me most about the movie was how authentic everything looked and felt, like I was there. I know that because I am here.

So they respected who they included in the film, but though they might have gone for a respectful portroyal of the characters, it didn't work for me. The Chinese guy was pretty good, but the rest of the characters were so bland and didn't leave much impact at all. They felt like they were "there" because they were in real life, but not because they actually did much for the story. It felt too forced to have check-list characters like that - the couple who got split up and had to reunite; the boy and father who got split up and had to reunite; the death of a young boy so the impact feels greater and so on...

The people who were affected were check-list characters.

I wouldn't say I necessarily have a "bias" towards such movies, but sure I do find them missing the mark most of the times. Whatever movie, the event always seem so dramatized and "set up" and you can always devide the movie into HEROES and ENEMIES (yes in capitals) and it always seem to be more a product made to please the inner patriotism and hail the heroes of the day in such a glorified way that it almost because disrespectful sometimes, because of the overly dramatic way it is done.

But there are many movies that are unpatriotic and also foreign movies that are patriotic.

You keep saying "that's how it actually went down". Sure, I know the basic story and such, but a movie isn't good just because it follows the real-life story that it is actually based on. That's kind of a given and what you expect from it really... It's more the approach and stylistic choices of a true story movie that sets it apart.

That's the way you saw it, don't know if that's something I could argue even if I saw it differently.

Greengrass' United 93 is a great example of such movie done excellently. The movie seems to be about ordinary people and it doesn't glorify one side or the other. The terrorists are not portrayed much differently than the heroes and the heroic acts come off as natural because of Greengrass' unbiased documenting approach. There is no real "hero moment" with an American flag in the backround or some patriotic remarks. The heroes are hailed as individual human beings and not as superhumans or action heroes, like it can often be the case.

i was up all night watching the chase and capture and was in Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown the very next day. The heroism and patriotism was 100% real. I have never seen police officers get their just due like they did that day, and I was proud as hell and I was far from the only one.

I remember you saying something about you living in Boston/knowing Boston or whatever it was, so doesn't that mean you could have some bias yourself towards the event? The movie is almost made for you then, because you were actually there or know more about the event first hand than I do? In the same way you could say I'm not an expert on the topic and therefore my criticism can be faulty. But really I'm just judging the movie, not the event. And I don't like the movie or how Berg makes movies. So if anything, it's more a bias against Berg than patriotic movies.

There's no question I am biased towards Boston movies, and I even mentioned that when I watched it.

Whether you agree or not, I did say "turning the otherwise goodhearted patriotic picture into a pitiful mocking of those who got injured" - so I actually think the starting point is fine and patriotic movies in its concept doesn't annoy more; though most of the times the execution just don't suit me.

I didn't see anything as mocking.


I guess it is in the nature of being an American to be very proud and have big arm moments about being an American. FREEDOM! and all that. I'm not saying all Americans are that way or that being an American is so simple in its nature, but more than others especially their movies seem to scream out a certain proudness of who they are and where they come from. In movies, that often comes off as cheesy or embarrassing to me.

I really don't see how it's an American thing.

So yeah, patriotism is not an American thing, but it has kind of become associated with America a lot because of the way it is viewed from outside the country itself. So I guess you could also say because I'm not an American, I don't understand the way you guys go about talking and being proud of who you are. Nations are different, countries are different, I might just not understand how you go about it.

I kind of understand how that might be a perception, but I also wonder how pride in one's nation can be a bad thing.

[Joel]

_______________________

MovieMeditation's
https://s26.postimg.org/wtjppefu1/maxresdefault-1.jpg
Reviews
_______________________

2017
mother!
directed by Darren Aronofsky
5

one word
Revelation.

http://communitynewsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/thumb_mother.jpg

one sentence
Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a chaotic yet crystal-clear vision, which pushes the limits of creativity, movie production and not least the audience's own limits and thereby creates a movie experience that is so much its own that you can help but be spellbound by it.

one paragraph
The film is best experienced as a stimulating and thought provoking piece of mind trickery, which puts the mind and soul on overtime, inside a film that strongly reflects the sparkling auteur, who Darren Aronofsky once again proves he definitely is. He challenges the movie medium itself, and its “fixed-frame workspace”, and creates a nightmarish reality, where visuals, sound and acting is unhinged and untouched... a devilish fabled dreamscape, serving as an expanded apocalyptic anecdote, all about being in the midst of the moment, inside all the chaos, while struggling to get a firm grip on Aronofsky's uncontrollable sparkle of light in subjective cinema...

_______________________


additional paragraph(s) for the avid follower
Director, Darren Aronosky, resurrects himself from the ashes with a glowing and puzzling production, made in secret behind the backs of both the audience and the press. With the art piece, 'Mother!', Aronofsky takes us back to the beginning, where the director’s distinctive authority once again receives the right to tear down Hollywood's huge, enclosed walls in order to resurface, but without pressure from studies or high expectations from the audience.

Aronofsky plays around with cinematic elements like that consists of satirical, biblical and biographical pieces and then tosses everything into a blender, which then tears it all apart before the eyes of the audience, in the most crazy and sophisticated production I have seen in a long time – a completely insane and psychotic "split personality" of a movie production, made with so much energy and effort from the director, that the absence of straight forward logic and refined explanations doesn’t matter one bit.

Darren Aronofsky's ‘mother!’ is a divine, two-hour-long trip through hell - completely without hesitation - where your brain is constantly challenged by a cascade of uncontrollable contrasts and concepts that appear faster than you are able to digest it. I would like to think that there is a storyline present, but it is stretched out far above the heads of the audience, where Aronofsky continues to hang even heavier metaphors and stronger symbolism, which eventually threatens to break and fall to the ground – but the excitement of whether it does or not is exhilarating enough on its own.

The movie is exactly as flawed as it is flawless, if it makes sense, and this is precisely what gives the film a almost demanded energy, which I happily accept with open arms – even though Aronofsky cuts both my arms off in the process and prevents me from getting close to his latest, most fragile and most extreme work to date...

Also, the performances are top notch and almost delivered with what seems to be no effort from the cast. They are naturals, acting as natural and honest as possible, selling this movie with Hollywood actors as anything but a Hollywood movie. But it is definitely a movie, that will have people wander out from the theater… but it will also leave some people in awe… and also some people in confusion. It will split the audiences and critics in an extreme way, but that is exactly what makes this so great… A mainstream movie aims to please a wide audience, but fails to center in on something truly perfect; all the while a more artistically driven movie aims to please itself first, which means the audience that it does hit, it will hit dead center. And Aronofsky did for me here…


Question
In which way can artful movies be better than mainstream, as well as the other way around? Can it be a good thing, when a film kind of loses you towards the end, simply because it is such a subjective work and dares where others don't?

_______________________
first-time watch

Great review! I jsut watched this last night, and while I did not like it and found it unnecessarily grotesque (near the end), I kept thinking about it today at work. The themes kept unraveling to me. Him is God..is the baby Jesus. Husband and wife break the crystal (apple from the tree0? I read some other thoughts on it and things cleared up a little more.

I will say that as far as filmmaking goes, this is an incredible film and was staged in an unholy and immaculate manner.

I wish I enjoyed the pace but I felt the pace absolutely destroyed the film, as well as the shocking secnes near the end involving innocence.