Daniel's New Reviews

→ in
Tools    





DANIEL'S NEW REVIEWS


Some of you will be aware that I already have a review thread (you can close it, or keep it open if anyone randomly decides to comment on an old article, I do not mind), but I hope you don't mind me starting a new one. I am doing this for a couple of reasons, basically I have not posted in the other thread for a while and in there I felt I was probably too generous to a lot of the films and with a few exceptions most of my reviews didn't say too much about the films that you probably had not already heard, with a lot of overly positive ratings meaning it was difficult to really see my thoughts and how I separated films from one each other.

You will have also noticed that I use the Movie Tab a lot of the time now when I want to post my thoughts on a film, and often these turn into mini-reviews themselves, making my review thread basically needless. So from now on I am only going to post reviews where I feel I have wrote enough to warrant an individual post and have something interesting to say about a film that is too big for the Movie Tab.

Hopefully these reviews will be bigger, better and more enjoyable than some of those in my old thread. I have a review ready to post in here and just like my last thread I will use this post as an index.

Basically with my new ratings I am going to be using the first four popcorn boxes like how Ebert rated films out of 4, with the last popcorn box reserved for those films I found to be truly great experiences.

THE FILMS


1947

Brighton Rock (John Boulting)
-

1962

Dr. No (Terence Young)


1971

Klute (Alan J. Pakula)


1990

Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven)
+

1992

Lethal Weapon 3 (Richard Donner)


2000

American Psycho (Mary Harron)


2011

Rango (Gore Verbinski)


2012

Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)
+

2013

Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen)


2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves)



American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000)




A brilliant dark comedy that works as an effective satire much like Fight Club, a film released the year previous to it. But like Fight Club, it is a film that I feel many will overlook and miss the point of, instead only focussing on the stylistic elements – the brutal violence that takes place within the film.

Adapted from a best selling novel of the same name, the film’s female director ensures that the film is something more than a piece of entertainment where we watch the actions of an insane man on a killing spree. The film has gained a cult following, mostly in part to Christian Bale’s superb performance as the eccentric Patrick Bateman, but it is not just the bizarre images such as the wealthy investment banker dancing to the music of ‘Huey Lewis and the News’ before proceeding to take an axe to a man’s head repeatedly, that makes the character such a memorable and fascinating one.

At the beginning of the film we are talked through part of Bateman’s daily routine complete with self narration as he showers, clean himself and undertakes his morning exercises in order to maintain his appearance. Key to the character of Bateman is his inflated ego, he is what most would describe as a ‘rich spoilt brat’, and is of the opinion that he is somehow superior to those around him, always trying to stay ahead of his work colleagues as they pathetically compete over business cards and restaurant reservations. We see scenes where Bateman is visibly angered by his jealousy of his work colleagues, not only the business card scene but also when he discovers that one colleague, Allen, has an apartment that would cost more than his. The actual fact is that these business cards and apartments are not much different from each other; the difference is small yet holds great importance to the greedy and narcissistic Patrick Bateman. The script is filled with lots of hilarious lines and scenes, and I will honestly say this film viewing was the most I have laughed in a while, whilst some may find it dark and disturbing, I personally loved the sick and twisted Bateman whose violent personality is crucially overlooked by his friends.

Subtle, almost unnoticeable differences that hold major importance, is a description that can be applied to Bateman and his colleagues themselves. One of the film’s running jokes is that Bateman is constantly mistaken for his colleagues. Bateman’s desire to be something more than he is, is what ultimately drives his brutal killing spree.



"Do you like Huey Lewis and The News?"

** Spoilers ahead – do not read without watching the film **


In the end it becomes apparent that Bateman in facts wants to be caught, he wants the world to know about his crimes, he wants the fame, to stand out from the crowd. Yet somehow, he continues to evade punishment with a series of scenes that poise the question to the viewer whether Bateman’s killing is actually real or not.

This ambiguity between fantasy and reality is what makes the film such an interesting satire for me. I can see arguments for both sides of the real or not real argument. On the surface it appears that the film may be pointing towards the murderous spree of Bateman being simply fantasy. His drawings that are discovered at the films end seem to indicate that these are simply the insane thoughts of a man so egotistical, he wants to commit these murders and make a name for himself, but he can not – with the nail gun scene showing this.

Early on in the film there actually appears to be a subtle indication that Bateman’s murderous personality is part of his own imagination, when he seemingly panics over an alibi for Allen’s murder, only to be assured by the detective that he was, as confirmed by a number of his colleagues, present at a meal with them. This scene is important as it could imply a number of things: either what the detective says is real - Bateman was at a dinner and did not murder Allen or that Bateman did murder Allen but was given the alibi of the dinner meal due to the ongoing joke of mistaken identity - however this would likely not be so literal and instead be part of the films satirical criticism of the 1980s yuppie generation, implying that Bateman was ‘above’ being punished for such crimes and that somehow these actions would always be covered up. But it could in fact suggest something else, what if the character of Detective Kimball is a completely imaginative creation of Bateman, a character that represents everything he wants. He wants to be caught, and in his conversations Bateman appears to be slipping, he is uncertain about an alibi and his body language suggests that something is wrong, as if he wants the detective to suspect something.

Even after confessing to the murders, Bateman continues to evade punishment. His lawyer, Harold, again mistakes him for another of his colleagues in a conversation where he describes Bateman’s confession as unbelievable in part for his ‘decision’ to use Patrick Bateman in his ‘joke’, a person ‘too lightweight’ to be able to commit such crimes.

Bateman has not only managed to avoid getting caught and being punished for his crimes, he has also failed in his attempts to become recognised, he is still a pathetic human being no better than his colleagues, a man who will continue to be mistaken for others, someone whose colleagues will still not take seriously and continue to take his homicidal remarks as nothing more than humour. The film finishes with the words of Bateman, "This confession has meant nothing”, which can be taken as an indication of his continuous desire to inflict pain on others, but I saw it more of him displaying his frustration that his confession has meant nothing to those around him.

Whether or not as a human being he was capable of committing such crimes is not important to the film as a whole, what is more important is the dark ideas that fill is head, they represent the evil side of human nature where people are willing to at least fantasise about going to such extremes in order to achieve recognition.
__________________



Great review, pretty much covering my own thoughts on the film. I especially felt the ending monologue was powerful and really drove the point home of his meaningless existence and ultimate anonymity.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Oh great just what I wanted, more competition for my reviews! Going by your dormant reviews thread I thought I'd already seen you off but now you're back for more!

I've not seen American Psycho so only skimmed over most of your review but looks good. Looking forward to what other reviews you have up your sleeve



Oh great just what I wanted, more competition for my reviews! Going by your dormant reviews thread I thought I'd already seen you off but now you're back for more!
Haters are my motivators

On another note, I might copy my Rango review over here. From my other thread I feel that's the one I'm most proud of and worthy of a place in my brand new thread Don't want it to look like I am trying to get as much rep as I can or whatever, although I don't think many saw it anyway



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
been enjoying your mini reviews in the movie tab and while american psycho is on my list of haven't but REALLY need to see, i still liked your review and rather curious to see what ya thought of Rango (bit of a huge fan of the movie, meself)



Rango (Gore Verbinski, 2011)




Rango
is a delightful film that can be enjoyed not only by young children as wonderful visual treat but also as a fantastic piece of work that draws inspiration and pays homage to numerous films, as a result rewarding and pleasing more intelligent and experienced film watchers.

If you were to show this film to your child and expect to share a family experience similar to a Disney Pixar delight such as Toy Story or Wall-E then you may be disappointed. The strength of Rango lies not with its soul and charm, the main protagonist is in fact rather ugly and the film uses a landscape that we associate with gritty spaghetti westerns – a strong contrast to the vibrant colours in films such as Up And Brave. Instead the Rango relies on its style and intelligence; it’s wholly fresh and original, like no animation you have ever seen before.

Compare Rango with one of Disney Pixar’s most recent film franchise, Cars. One is a film that takes a classic genre, its environment, characters and characteristics that we associate it with and combine it with various other plot elements from other films, without feeling derivative but instead keeping its work fresh, creative and unpredictable, the other is a film about talking cars.

The film’s eponymous protagonist is voiced by Johnny Depp who works with Gore Verbinski once again following their partnership in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Whilst I am not a particularly big fan of the film franchise you can not criticise Verbinski’s winning formula that has been extremely successful at putting a fresh, creative and exuberant spin on classic topic. I feel though that Verbinski’s first ever feature film Mousehunt can be better compared to Rango, a family comedy about a pesty rodent who refuses to leave a house in a Home Alone style comedy of errors from those attempting to get rid of the mouse, like Rango it can be categorised as a family film however it is similar in the fact that parents may feel uneasy at times letting their kids watch two films that both contain more darker elements, although Rango is a Western so I think it would be more disappointing if we did not see smoking, bad language and a little bit of violence.



Rango overlooks the town of ‘Dirt’ from the Mayor’s Balcony.

The story begins when Rango – as he later becomes known – tells us of the acting dreams he has, he is nothing more than a small pet chameleon but is then thrown into the fantasy world of his dreams, although this world is not how he quite imagined it with the town of Dirt clearly not thriving as it should be in the good old West.

Rango’s arrival into the town of Dirt is almost identical to the character of Clint Eastwood in Sergio Leone’s first film of the Dollars Trilogy, A Fistful of Dollars. We see Rango standing with the Mayor on a balcony that overlooks the town, almost parallel to one of the opening scenes in A Fistful of Dollars where we see the Man with No Name taking in his new surroundings, a town he is completely new to and a town he can use to his advantage as an experienced bounty hunter. Rango’s story is almost the opposite, although also without a name, he is also without a reputation or any type of experience that would aid him in solving the town’s main issue. In A Fistful of Dollars we see a capable bounty hunter play off rival factions of the town through his gun wielding skills. In the town of Dirt the problem is that that the water town has dried up, they are in need of a new sheriff, a hero to rescue them of their problems. Rango is not equipped to deal with any of such issues, but as you may expect ends up self volunteering for all three in a fantastic bar scene – that also draws some parallels to the gritty bar scene at the beginning of Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West in terms of visual style and atmosphere – where through improvisation introduces himself as the tough and experienced drifter who famously killed seven brothers with one bullet, naming himself ‘Rango’.

What follows is a storyline almost identical to Roman Polanski’s masterpiece Chinatown, with Rango fulfilling the role played by Jack Nicholson, a private detective that finds himself drawn into a conspiracy involving a powerful organisation attempting to control the future through means of the water supply. The villain in Rango is the Mayor (voiced by Ned Beatty), an old aged turtle who is suspiciously unaffected by the lack of water and is able to enjoy the many luxuries of the west, such as golf. He is happy to allow the visibly out of depth Rango continue his role as Sheriff, not expecting the dim-witted chameleon to find much in his quest to get to the bottom of the water mystery. This character has two clear inspirations; one is the prospector Morton from Once Upon a Time in the West, and the other more noticeable is Noah Cross from Chinatown, a greedy and powerful old man who is portrayed by the great John Huston.

The film’s story combines a number of Western elements and the result is a very enjoyable story that is full of life, resulting in an enjoyable climax as a result of the inevitable Western style face off. The film’s central part is sandwiched between the two more serious parts and is focussed on the hunt for water, with Rango forming a traditional Western style posse to hunt down the men who he unknowingly led to the water bank, only further emphasising how incapable he really is in the role of Sheriff. This results in one of the films most memorable and exciting action scenes where Rango and his posse face off against an army of moles whom he discovers that to his surprise did not steal the town’s water. What occurs next is a scene that pays homage to one of my all time favourite film scenes, the helicopter attack from Apocalypse Now.



Rattlesnake Jake’s character is a direct reference to one of the West’s most memorable actors, Lee Van Cleef

** Slight spoilers in the following two paragraph - if you are interested in the film you should probably skip **

After returning to town with more questions and answers the Mayor becomes increasingly concerned at how eager Rango is to uncover the truth, so calls in the dreaded Rattlesnake Jake, a vicious creature that ‘never leaves without taking a soul’ having only previously stayed out of Dirt because of a hawk, that is now dead thanks to Rango. Jake, who the town people believe is in fact Rango’s brother reveals that their favourite Sheriff is nothing more than your average pet, exposing him to be a liar in a scene where the Sheriff’s sign is shot down by Jake. This scene reminded me of the great The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and perhaps even greater parallels can be drawn from the two films overall. In the James Stewart and John Wayne classic, Stewart’s character is a young lawyer named Ransom who attempts to protect the town through means of legal measures, he puts up his own sign for his office with John Wayne warning that it will only be shot down by the ruthless Liberty Valance who will come back and terrorise the town with his violent ways. In both films the protagonists are thrown in to uncomfortable environments where they are way out of their own depth however both men finally provide the inspiration to fight against these men, to stand up to them when the rest of the town’s people wont, a familiar theme in other Westerns such as The Magnificent Seven and Rio Bravo. The snake itself is certainly inspired by one of the greatest villains associated with Spaghetti Westerns, Lee Van Cleef, with the snake bringing the same haunting presence, striking eyes and even his famous hat and moustache.

Rango is forced to leave town, ashamed of the lies he has told. He ventures back across the desert to the busy road where he came from. Like in many other films, we know Rango will inevitably meet encouragement that will drive him on to redeem himself with the town people by helping them. I have seen people say that the film although impressive in technical terms is soulless; hence why parents would rather watch their children watch a Disney Pixar film, unfairly overlooking Rango. I would disagree, although Rango is perhaps not an instantly loveable character in the same bracket as the likes of Wall-E or Nemo, we come to equally love him and even feel sorry for him, an animal with big ambitions who wanted to be somebody but is ultimately useless. Key to the film is the element of adaptation, Rango is not cut out for the town of Dirt and everything he has dreamed of is not as easy and simple as he has dreamt it to be. During Rango’s exile we finally see the personified form of the Spirit of the West who takes the appearance of the legendary Western actor Clint Eastwood, and we get a scene that will likely go over the head of most children, the majority wont know who Eastwood is. Although this scene takes place in a dreamlike sequence for Rango, he recalls his own interpretations of the Spirit of the West, countless times we have watched films where the protagonist refuses to walk out on his own story and in good spirit Rango does the same here, heading back to Dirt for the inevitable showdown between good and evil, with his return much like his opening in the fact it parallels Eastwood’s very own from A Fistful of Dollars.



The Spirit of the West appears to give encouragement to Rango, in the image of Clint Eastwood.

The animated film is the first animated feature from Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), was Gore Verbinski’s first animated feature and was produced by Verbinski’s production company Blind Wink, Graham King (GK) Films and Nickelodeon, although this does not in anyway undermine the individuality of the film that you may have expected to be tailored more strongly towards the audience of children. The film’s composer Hans Zimmer is a more familiar name for audiences and Verbinski himself, with the prestigious composer (Nolan’s Batman Trilogy) having previously worked with Verbinski on The Pirates of the Caribbean films, The Ring and The Weather Man, his score is wacky and delightful, perfectly suiting the film and combining the more traditional sounds of the West such as the work of Ennio Morricone with more fast-paced and energetic sounds that along with the visuals remind us of the Coen Brother’s comedy Raising Arizona.

Rango is like nothing you have ever seen before, and that is what makes it so great. A fresh and innovative attempt at creating an animation that will please a variety of different audiences, as stated in the opening paragraph Verbinski is able to draw inspiration and pay homage to numerous classic films including many from the film’s genre of choice – Westerns. You can not compare Rango to a single Pixar film; it is so unique in its approach although equally as successful with a screenplay that follows an enjoyable formula for children but is filled with a number of surprises and fantastic scenes to make it creative and unpredictable. Rango might just be my personal favourite animated feature film, it is certainly the one I have seen the most, and although I love the delightful films of Pixar that include Wall-E, Up, and Toy Story, there is just something about Rango and its unconventional approach to the genre that makes me admire it that little bit more.

Note - I already posted this in my original thread but it did not really get much attention so I hope you do not mind me posting it here, it is not because I want more people to notice it but because I honestly feel this is one of my best and most accurate reviews and in terms of what I achieve with it its in fitting with my new thread. It is a film that I really do love and one of my very favourites.



Great reviews. I was also thinking about opening a new, decent thread, but I'm too lazy, so I'm sticking with my short opinions about every film I see.


American Psycho is an awesome film and it's probably Christian Bale's best acting performance I've seen so far. He's insanely funny and dark at the same time.
SPOILERS!
The ending was very interesting as Bateman escapes morality, while he actually doesn't want to. He was even kind of insulted by it.
The ending implies that one single man and his actions are just too puny to care for. Bateman very much experiences that feeling of 'being nothing'.
Whether his crimes are real or not, isn't completely clear (it's fun to find little clues), but neither of the options take something away from the real crisis Patrick Bateman is experiencing. A nihilistic existential crisis.


I already told you that I'm also a big fan of Rango. It's probably my second favorite American CGI animated picture (Toy Story 3 is number one) and is probably in my top ten favorite animation films of all time. It's EXTREMELY entertaining and actually quite intelligent. It also has the most beautiful CGI animation I've seen so far. I obviously also love its references to the many classic spaghetti westerns and of course Chinatown. Great stuff!
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
i can definitely see why you wanted to repost this, quite the exceptional review,daniel, and i quite agree on, well, everything in regards to an animated film i hold at the no #1 spot and one i watch very, very often.
Rango, has you say, takes inspiration from quite a few westerns and in the process of paying homage, spins something quite fresh and enjoyable to watch with that inspiration.

excellent movie and an excellent review for it!



Love AMERICAN PSYCHO...worth seeing for Bale's performance alone and for a film filled with so much unpleasantness, the film has massive re-watch appeal...I don't even know how many times I've watched it.



Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell, 2012)
+




The 2012 Academy Awards saw Silver Linings Playbook, a romantic comedy, pick up eight nominations in total, notably getting a nomination for all four acting categories, including a win for Jennifer Lawrence, two years after a nomination in the same category for her performance in Winter’s Bone.

This is a film that relies on its performances, and is a perfect example of a director knowing how to maximise, and do best, what he intends to do. The performances are vital because the story is quite straightforward, and some might say it is predictable and sentimental. But its simple style filled with charm is not a burden and is guaranteed to have you smiling and laughing throughout, this may have been very different in another film, under another director, but here it acts as a platform for us to watch these wonderful characters as they interact with each other.

The film is about two damaged characters. Bradley Cooper is Pat, a young man who has been released from a mental hospital after an eight month stay following a brutal attack on an older teacher that he came home to find his wife having an affair with, and Jennifer Lawrence is Tiffany, a young woman who has suffered from her husbands death and turned to a self deprecating lifestyle of sleeping with as many men as possible, much to the disgust of Pat. The two characters have different solutions to their problems, Pat believes that everything will turn out okay with his wife; he has lost weight and is attempting to control his anger, which he believes will bring her back. The pair argue with each other, both critical of each others personalities and methods of dealing with their problems.



These two damaged characters are perfect for each other, they are bonded by their similar problems, and both are looking to fix their lives. But aside from Pat’s refusal to accept the current situation with his wife (who has a restraining order imposed on him), there are other obstacles that threaten to ruin the duo’s potential relationship. Pat’s dad, of same name, portrayed by Robert De Niro, is a gambling addict with problems of his own, he has OCD and is highly superstitious, sometimes blaming his son for his own problems and dragging the family down with has bad habits. Jacki Weaver is his wife, Dolores, the most sensible and caring character, in certain scenes of family turmoil you genuinely feel sorry for her character has she attempts to keep everybody happy and hold it all together.

When you heard Robert De Niro and Chris Tucker were set to be in a comedy together, you might have feared the worst with the former’s recent track record with a string of less than impressive films following the turn of the 21st century, and the latter’s role in the Rush Hour series, however both actors do great jobs in their respective roles. As mentioned De Niro’s character is troubled, but the actor brings great balance to the person on screen, although often the cause of trouble, at other times he genuinely only means best for his family and is supportive of his son, wanting to strengthen his relationship with him and also for him and his brother (Shea Whigham, Boardwalk Empire). Then there’s Chris Tucker’s character Danny, who constantly pops up where you perhaps don’t expect him, injecting a good amount of humour to a number of scenes.

The film is not perfect in terms of story, at times the plot does seem a little bit silly or unlikely, such as the bet towards the end, but as I said near the beginning of the review, that is not very important and can be excused as it gives us a reason to spend two hours with these wonderful likeable characters, particularly of course the characters portrayed by Brad Cooper, and the deserving Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence.



I also enjoyed it. Good review!
It was an interesting film. A lot happens, it has a great deal of heart, there's good acting and above all, it's all very, very charming and sweet without getting unbelievably sentimental. I very much agree with the "balance" you describe.

I'm looking forward to David O. Russel's next film and I urgently have to see some of his earlier films, as some of them look very interesting.



Great review. It is like we shared a brain, Pacific Rim style, while watching it. I gave it the same rating.
__________________
Letterboxd



Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 2013)



Over twenty years ago the Coen Brothers’ created Barton Fink, a film in which its titular character is at times his own worse enemy, unable to see that it is himself that prohibits him from success, unwilling to compromise and accept help from those around him.

Here, Oscar Isaac’s lead character shares a lot in common with John Turturro’s as he attempts to become a folk singing success in 1961 New York. Llewyn Davis (I delightful Welsh name, I must add) is not a particularly likeable or sympathetic character, he is uncaring of those around him and does not see the pain and suffering he causes for others: he impregnates his friend’s partner and without hesitation offers an abortion, he carelessly loses another friends cat, and he rudely insults other artists for a variety of reasons.

Recovering from the death of his former partner, Llewyn Davis stubbornness and refusal to conform to the changing musical landscape around him ultimately holds him back from achieving success. In one of the beginning scenes a man sits beside him in a bar, praising his friends’ performance, Isaac sits there with a look of disgust,to him, this is not good music, and as we soon begin to learn: it is either his way or no way.

In another scene he agrees to take part in a musical piece with two other men, he initially mocks the writing of the song before he realises that it his is co-singer and friend who is the writer. He then decides to take an up front payment in order to fund the abortion of this same man’s wife’s unborn child, as opposed to receiving any future royalties. His past dismissal for the concerns of others once again proves to be a hindrance to his career.

Llewyn Davis’ disdain for others is summed up in a scene with his sister when he describes other people simply as those who ‘exist’. The other characters in this movie are shown in such a way in that we see them through Llewyn Davis’ eyes; he is a selfish man, unable to see the good in those around him. Justin Timberlake’s character is a more successful musician whose music whilst not folk music like Llewyn’s, is certainly more successful and profitable, he also has a wife and home unlike Llewyn. Then we have the characters portrayed by John Goodman and Garrett Hedlund, two talented musicians who are rather unpleasant and insulting towards Llewyn (at least Goodman’s character), themselves in a way representing wasted talents, unlikely to make it because of different problems, although Llewyn fails to recognise what they are trying to tell him, reacting angrily to their criticism of folk music.

The film is bleak and depressing at times, it’s a very moody film which will put off some viewers. But most of the Coen Brothers’ films are similar in the way they deal with the little man, the underdog, and at times with pessimistic fates. In No Country for Old Men we have a character that although faced with a number of forces against him, is ultimately responsible for his own downfall through his stubbornness and insistence that he will win by going his own way. The cinematography is superb in capturing the feel of Llewyn’s daunting journey throughout the film; it has a wonderful blue, frosty feel to it. The film probably has the best soundtrack of the year too, with all the music – bar the final song from a voice you might just recognise – recorded live by the actors themselves. Then there is the usual Coen Brothers’ dark humour, although at times nasty, you can not help but laugh at the human side of frustration that shows in both Llewyn Davis’ actions and dialogue.

The last scene in particular is a brilliant piece of writing, it replicates what we are shown at the start, but this time we get added context and have a full understanding of Llewyn Davis’ character, we know what exactly is happening and can easily accept why.

The Coen Brothers have made many great films, and this is right up there at the very top, it might just be their greatest and most honest human study, it’s a film that manages to be both beautiful and tragic, and you can not help but really feel the journey that Llewyn Davis’ goes on. My favourite film of 2013 so far.

Rating -



Finished here. It's been fun.
Woah. Brilliant reviews man,very detailed and well-written. I'm watching ILD today, even more excited to view it now knowing you gave it a
/



My favourite film of 2013 so far.

Rating -


Awesome review! It's basically what I wanted to hear. I'm extremely looking forward to seeing it after reading this (even more than I already was). It seems like a very dark Coen film and that's always something I enjoy.
I'll definitely let you know when I watched it. I'm probably not going to see it before the 22th (then is my last exam), but after that I'll definitely try to watch it as soon as possible.

Thanks for sharing your detailed opinion!



Thanks for the kind words guys, I don't think this film is for everyone but it's definitely very Coen-esque so you should know what you're gonna get before watching it.



Awesome review! It's basically what I wanted to hear. I'm extremely looking forward to seeing it after reading this (even more than I already was). It seems like a very dark Coen film and that's always something I enjoy.
I'll definitely let you know when I watched it. I'm probably not going to see it before the 22th (then is my last exam), but after that I'll definitely try to watch it as soon as possible.

Thanks for sharing your detailed opinion!
Yeh, I definitely think you'll like it a lot. You should ask me to share my detailed opinions more often