Going into this any Batman film is going be hard to measure up to Nolan's to me. I think Nolan found near the pitch perfect fun/realistic Batman meant for a big cinema screen. So any new Batman is already starting in a hole with me. It peaked my interest because The Riddler is my favorite Batman villain (I really wish Nolan made a movie with him;( would have been gold)I think comic purist seem to like this movie because it's a darker detective Batman. I can dig that but you spent the opening of the movie talking about shadows and Batman could always be lurking....well he spends the majority of the movie just hanging out in public with no sense of surprise at all. I don't think a person he came up against was scared of him expect the opening sequence. It was just goofy to me watching him just hang out with cops with a silly costume on. Just make a detective noir without Batman, which I think this movie would have been better if it was just that. Anyways that was bizarre to me.
Dano was fine as the Riddler. Sort of fizzles out though. Big Spacey Seven vibes. Zoe was adequate as Catwoman, she looked sexy as hell in those wigs. Colin Farrell is unrecognizable as the Penguin, didn't have a ton to do but he was awesome. Pattinson as Batman was fine but as Bruce they were indistinguishable. Both depressed and sad, it's pretty obvious they are the same people. His Bruce needs alot of work.
It looked beautiful as a film. It was just way to long and started to get convoluted at the end. I was wanting it to be over the last 30 minutes of the film which isn't a good sign. The woke/identity politics Hollywood just can't help themselves. It's not in your face but a couple lines are and the casting was pretty deliberate, specially the mayor elect, who I didn't buy at all she looked 20 years old. I don't know I think it's biggest sin is it's boring and it makes Batman kind of uncool. It's freaking Batman...how do I come out of it thinking he is uncool. Maybe if I was into the comics I'd dig it but wasn't for me. I'll forget this movie by next week.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused
For me it would be Goodfellas, Shutter Island, Wolf of Wall Street and maybe The Irishman. Also a few of his documentaries are superb (what he did for Dylan and George Harrison is monumental in their appreciation of those two men's respective genius', and his Fran Liebowitz doc Public Speaking is also pretty great if you're a fan of her.)
Wait, I forgot that I had just said that I thought The Color Of Money was one of his best, so I would say that one.
I've never really liked Goodfellas. I love some of the style, I love some scenes, overall the movie just wasn't for me. I feel like this was the movie where his style rolled over into the slicker version of Scorsese that has made all of his films (that I've seen) since then.
The twist in Shutter Island is so deliberately telegraphed, I only view it as a twist being deployed tongue in cheek. Same with the overt exposition dump at the end explaining obvious things we already know (I assume a homage to the dreadful tacked on end of Psycho) I definitely don't think it is perfect. It does have bloat. And is a little too stylistically showy for my tastes. But as Scorsese doing dumb paranoid B movie, but with lots of money and stars, it's my kind of heaven.
Wolf of Wall Street is essential. One of the greatest comedy satires of this millenium. A baroque nightmare of douche bros destroying the country. And making you laugh at it.
The first Dylan doc he did is a miracle of footage and recent interviews with him. It stands along side Don't Look Now as the most important filmic document of the greatest artist of the 20th century. And the Harrison one is great a giving perspective on the 'forgotten Beatle' and how he was just a few hairs beneath the greatness of the others. And was nearly as complicated a person as Lennon
Agree with those things above. I think the movie just needed a little less slickness, needed to be closer to the ground if you will.
And what is with directors that fall so totally in love with CGI like Del Toro and Scorsese? It's one thing if there are a few specific things you want to do that can only be accomplished that way, then maybe it works. But ugly green-screens of... two guys in a forest? Why? Why is that necessary. The only acceptable explanation is that he wanted to intentionally create an "unreality" (if you'll allow it) because that's how it looked.
And then exposition dumps as climaxes of movies is arguably my biggest pet peeve in all of film (right ahead of unnecessary green-screens). Other than just not understanding in general why people think it's that great, it is the main reason I am baffled by the love of Minority Report. Steven, you're supposed to be this legendary director, you can't come up with any way to explain the story to the audience other than having Max von Sydow just literally explain it to them? Weak sauce.
I will check out WoWS on your rec. You and I don't always agree, but you're kind of a hard-ass, so there's that. A lot of people have rec'd it to me and I haven't done it, you can be the straw that broke the camel's back.
I'll definitely check out the Dylan doc, that's a guy I keep liking more and more as I get older (I mean, not as a person, obviously, he's an *******, but as a musician and songwriter).
It's not bad. In terms of its internal logic, it's quite plausible. It's familiar. It's maudlin. It ends with more whimper than bang.
At a certain point, with films like this, I tire of trying to be the smartest kid in the class figuring out who did what and who double or triple-crossed whom. The plot mechanics of the Rube-Goldberg-Whodunit? machine tend to bore me the longer and more tortured the story becomes, but this film is different. It's about feeling and motivation, the subjective aspects of "why" which become increasingly pronounced as the film goes on. It's different in that it is not a mere "suspense spy thriller," but more of an extended reverie. A useful soporific or "unhappy pill" for those of you who would like to feel depressed (and I don't even really mean that in a bad way).
Watched it because of Mark Rylance, one of the best actors of our generation. It has particularities that resemblances to his possibly most well known work, Rudolf Abel in The Bridge of Spies, although, the film and character are nothing like it. Chicago, 1956, a tailor, I'm sorry, a cutter, you'll understand when you see it, gets mixed in dangerous mob business. Although this takes place in Chicago, this is an all-in-one room film. Everything is centered around Rylance character, he successfully made it mysterious, slowly unfolding his past history with a twist by the end.
P.s. @Stirchley the film mentions Savile Row, it has very slow and detailed takes on tailoring, almost like Hannibal Lecter cooking in the series.
BUtterfield 8 (Daniel Mann, 1960) 6/10 A Werewolf in England (Charlie Steeds, 2020) + 4.5/10 Of Human Bondage (Ken Hughes, 1964) 6/10 Capricorn One (Peter Hyams, 1977) 7/10 Exciting, funny thriller about astronauts Sam Waterston, James Brolin and O.J. Simpson who have to try to escape in the desert after crazed NASA official Hal Holbrook "uses" them to fake the first Mars landing, but reporter Elliott Gould is on the story. Just One Kiss (Jeff Beesley, 2022) 6/10 Lizzie (Hugo Haas, 1957) 5/10 Wall of Noise (Richard Wilson, 1963) 6/10 55 Days at Peking (Nicholas Ray, 1963) 7+/10 British diplomat David Niven and American major Charlton Heston are in the Wild East during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. Grand spectacle and action in and around the International Compound in Peking. Look in Any Window (William Alland, 1961) 5/10 Blood on the Moon (Robert Wise, 1948) 6/10 In the Cool of the Day (Robert Stevens, 1963) 5/10 Infinite Storm (Malgorzata Szumowska, 2022) 6/10 Rescue climber Naomi Watts ascends Mt. Washington, New Hampshire and tries to save stranded man Billy Howle during a blizzard. Both people carry memories of loss and guilt with them. Brimstone & Treacle (Richard Loncraine, 1982) 6/10 Black Patch (Allen H. Miner, 1957) 5/10 The Badlanders (Delmer Daves, 1958) 6/10 All My Friends Hate Me (Andrew Gaynord, 2021) 5.5/10 Meeting up with college friends to celebrate his birthday, Pete (Tom Stourton) encounters what he considers to be strange people and occurrences, leaving him paranoid and the party very uncomfortable. When Billie Met Lisa (David Silverman, 2022) 6/10 Agnes (Mickey Reece, 2021) 5/10 Get Out of My Room (Cheech Marin, 1985) 6/10 The Contractor (Tarik Saleh, 2022) 6/10 U.S. Special Forces sergeant Chris Pine is discharged and loses his pension and benefits, so to support his family he goes to work for military contractor Kiefer Sutherland who ends up sending him and his friend Ben Foster on a BS mission.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden My IMDb page
Watched it because of Mark Rylance, one of the best actors of our generation. It has particularities that resemblances to his possibly most well known work, Rudolf Abel in The Bridge of Spies, although, the film and character are nothing like it. Chicago, 1956, a tailor, I'm sorry, a cutter, you'll understand when you see it, gets mixed in dangerous mob business. Although this takes place in Chicago, this is an all-in-one room film. Everything is centered around Rylance character, he successfully made it mysterious, slowly unfolding his past history with a twist by the end.
P.s. @Stirchley the film mentions Savile Row, it has very slow and detailed takes on tailoring, almost like Hannibal Lecter cooking in the series.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I speak of getting tired of twists and turns. This one pushes the turns a few moves past my interest. It was OK, but I need a break from the word "marbles" now.
It's really pretty cool and funny - The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent - So what DO you do with Nick Cage? He's been in more movies than you can shake a proverbial stick at, many of them almost seem like self parody. In real life he needs to act because, in spite of being rich, apparently money slips through him like a hole in the pocket, so here we go, his 104th role (according to IMDB). He's being repeatedly confronted by his younger self, who doesn't like Nick's career choices. He also intends to retire after his next job.
So, Nick plays himself, in a low point in his career, with a problematical home life. He's invited (his next job) to a private island by a sketchy guy Javi, who has too much security on the island for anybody's comfort. Javi wants to make a movie starring Cage and also idolizes Cage. Then enter the CIA, who are following Javi who say that Javi is a big time illegal arms dealer, up to his ears with bad guys. There are too many plot twists for a brief note, but many bodies will fall before Nick survives.
This movie is really pretty darn crazy. It's not written by Cage, but Cage is the center. Is it the real Cage or a fictional Cage? What about the young Cage? Does any of this make any sense? Yeah, it does, in a strangely circular, self-referential sort of way. It's funny, weird and moves along well. If you don't mind a lot of dead bodies, it's pretty darn funny and twisted enough to be worth a second viewing since there's a lot of loose ends and strange twists.
A little bit muddled, especially during it's first half, and not as grabby as these Se7en-like serial killer films usually are - instead of it's focus being on horrible murders or the killer, this one sets it's sights squarely on the detectives trying to solve them. One is a new guy and inexperienced (played by Rami Malek - a little miscast I thought) and the other a broken down wreck who shouldn't be there to start with (played by Denzel Washington). They zero in on a suspect, who appears to walk and talk like a guy who has a T-shirt with "I'm a serial killer" on the front and back of it - but played so very interestingly by Jared Leto. There are half a dozen huge revelations towards the end of the film, and a quite unexpected turn of events. Should have been a great movie, but it's screenplay (with massive dumps of exposition and a lack of focus) lets us down a little, as does Malek I thought.
6/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma
A little bit muddled, especially during it's first half, and not as grabby as these Se7en-like serial killer films usually are - instead of it's focus being on horrible murders or the killer, this one sets it's sights squarely on the detectives trying to solve them. One is a new guy and inexperienced (played by Rami Malek - a little miscast I thought) and the other a broken down wreck who shouldn't be there to start with (played by Denzel Washington). They zero in on a suspect, who appears to walk and talk like a guy who has a T-shirt with "I'm a serial killer" on the front and back of it - but played so very interestingly by Jared Leto. There are half a dozen huge revelations towards the end of the film, and a quite unexpected turn of events. Should have been a great movie, but it's screenplay (with massive dumps of exposition and a lack of focus) lets us down a little, as does Malek I thought.
6/10
I don't remember much from this movie but the part I put in bold. I'd say he was alot miscast. Didn't buy him as an important young cop at all.
Been meaning to get around to this one for awhile. I just knew it was Al Pacino being blind and winning an Oscar. Never seen it. His role was very memorable all be it a bit over the top. O'Donnell was ok I suppose. Played the innocent teen part well, but some of the other stuff was wooden. The movie was too long felt a bit over indulgent. It was a bizarre story. Pacino is so mesmerizing, some good some bad it takes away from the plot being sort of silly. The end doesn't hit because I just didn't much care for O'Donnell's side plot. I get what they were trying to do but it should have been 30 minutes shorter and focused on O'Donnell and Pacino's characters and forget about the school story line. That's all it needed. It was a weird flick to me. Pacino's performance saves it from being a real mess in my eyes.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I speak of getting tired of twists and turns. This one pushes the turns a few moves past my interest. It was OK, but I need a break from the word "marbles" now.
If it were not for Mark Rylance I'd never even consider watching this film. The twists and turns are also not appealing to me. I don't consider the film good, I'd actually rate it lower, but I wasn't too bored, I only jumped the movie ahead two times. The final twist was very basic and cliché, like I said, if it were not for Mark I'd not even rate this film.
A little bit muddled, especially during it's first half, and not as grabby as these Se7en-like serial killer films usually are - instead of it's focus being on horrible murders or the killer, this one sets it's sights squarely on the detectives trying to solve them. One is a new guy and inexperienced (played by Rami Malek - a little miscast I thought) and the other a broken down wreck who shouldn't be there to start with (played by Denzel Washington). They zero in on a suspect, who appears to walk and talk like a guy who has a T-shirt with "I'm a serial killer" on the front and back of it - but played so very interestingly by Jared Leto. There are half a dozen huge revelations towards the end of the film, and a quite unexpected turn of events. Should have been a great movie, but it's screenplay (with massive dumps of exposition and a lack of focus) lets us down a little, as does Malek I thought.
6/10
The only things I liked about this film were:
1. The title reminds me of a poem I like very much, the shoelace, and honestly, I don't believe the author came up with the title by his own.
2. Many people don't like Jared Leto, I do, he's a chameleon, and this was another chameleon role, in this case was too pushed, but it was the only thing that attracted me in this film.
For the ones that enjoyed Denzel's role, I advise watching the film The Flock, this one yes, a good film with a good performance by the great, and possibly my favorite American actor, Richard Gere. A film with an attractive plot and interesting character study.
[quote=MovieBuffering;2297559]Scent Of A Woman - 1992
Been meaning to get around to this one for awhile. I just knew it was Al Pacino being blind and winning an Oscar. Never seen it. His role was very memorable all be it a bit over the top. O'Donnell was ok I suppose. Played the innocent teen part well, but some of the other stuff was wooden. The movie was too long felt a bit over indulgent. It was a bizarre story. Pacino is so mesmerizing, some good some bad it takes away from the plot being sort of silly. The end doesn't hit because I just didn't much care for O'Donnell's side plot. I get what they were trying to do but it should have been 30 minutes shorter and focused on O'Donnell and Pacino's characters and forget about the school story line. That's all it needed. It was a weird flick to me. Pacino's performance saves it from being a real mess in my eyes.
I never thought about it before as I think the film is good but agree 100%, without the schmlatz at the end the film could have been shorter and more time spent on the central relationship.
Been meaning to get around to this one for awhile. I just knew it was Al Pacino being blind and winning an Oscar. Never seen it. His role was very memorable all be it a bit over the top. O'Donnell was ok I suppose. Played the innocent teen part well, but some of the other stuff was wooden. The movie was too long felt a bit over indulgent. It was a bizarre story. Pacino is so mesmerizing, some good some bad it takes away from the plot being sort of silly. The end doesn't hit because I just didn't much care for O'Donnell's side plot. I get what they were trying to do but it should have been 30 minutes shorter and focused on O'Donnell and Pacino's characters and forget about the school story line. That's all it needed. It was a weird flick to me. Pacino's performance saves it from being a real mess in my eyes.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes through this whole movie when it came out in the theater.
It's the movie that kinda made me lose respect for Pacino and not wanna see any more of his work.
It's really a classic example, to me, of how lost cinema was in the 90s. Not that there were no good films but the general mainstream product was arguably the poorest of any decade.
If it were not for Mark Rylance I'd never even consider watching this film. The twists and turns are also not appealing to me. I don't consider the film good, I'd actually rate it lower, but I wasn't too bored, I only jumped the movie ahead two times. The final twist was very basic and cliché, like I said, if it were not for Mark I'd not even rate this film.
I think your rating is fair. Rylance carries the film and the camera is centered on him. The gangster characters are hopelessly thin stock types. They are written poorly. They are acted poorly. It's almost like they made them hollow so that we could enjoy Mark's performance more by comparison (as Rodney Dangerfield used to joke, "If you want to look thin, have fat friends.")
I was happy with the twist and turns up to a point.
WARNING: "Spoilers buster! You'll keep moving along if ya' know what's good for ya'!" spoilers below
At the point that Rylance turns out to be John Wick and the shears are -- as always knew they would be -- wielded as a deadly weapon, we were miles past our exit.
At the point that Rylance turns out to be John Wick and the shears are -- as always knew they would be -- wielded as a deadly weapon, we were miles past our exit.
Up to that point, I thought it was a quaint film. It just didn't know when to stop.
As bad as most films are these days, this was actually a quite welcome find for me.
Reply to Topic
