• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film What's the Last Film You Saw? v. Tell Us What You Thought!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just watched Kingsman, the secret service. Violent but fun, well made..
 
Last edited:
I watched Mysterious Skin last night, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbett. I had no idea what the film was about, just read that it was a very powerful film containing subject matter that was difficult to digest but a must-see nonetheless.

The film basically shows us how traumatic events experienced during childhood can depict the rest of a person's life. How humans can repress memories without realizing it, and create fantasies subconsciously in order to protect themselves from the overwhelming pain that surrounds them. This film is very difficult to watch and at times painfully awkward, but so effective. It is difficult for me to say I "loved" this film but it was fantastic.
 
The Imitation Game, but I was on MXE so I didn't understand it until the end, then the MXE feeling faded and suddenly I realised how sad the movie was. I think it was a real quality movie, very serious though.
 
I remember watching this film more than 10x literally. The sequence as well. Very nice!
 
I just watched an older movie (1997); Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino. Quite interesting, specially the ending.
 
Cake. Mostly because I read the synopsis and felt that I could relate so I was intrigued. Pretty good film.
 
Agreed, Devil's Advocate is an under-rated Pacino.
Great cast, too. The Charlize Theron parts are seriously disturbing.

Last movie I watched: The Colony with Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton.
It isn't an utterly awful post-apocalyptic film, but it certainly isn't great.
I'm sick of seeing girls wearing mascara in post-apocalyptic scenarios.
And, I could've done without the zombies (or whatever they were).
I liked the lack of a crowd-pleasing family friendly atmosphere.
A large number of the main characters die throughout the film.
Some of them are executed, point blank, by the colony.

I can't give it much more than 1.5 / 5, but I did enjoy it.

Cake. Mostly because I read the synopsis and felt that I could relate so I was intrigued. Pretty good film.
Click to expand...

Would have been a much better film without Aniston in the lead... It might have been a career best for her, but that's not really saying much (and, personally, I thought she was better in The Good Girl when there wasn't so much expected of her, acting-wise)... There are countless actresses who could have played the part better and she was only cast for publicity reasons (IMO)... Still, yeah, it was - as you said - pretty good. [/rant]
 
ForEverAfter said:
Would have been a much better film without Aniston in the lead... It might have been a career best for her, but that's not really saying much (and, personally, I thought she was better in The Good Girl when there wasn't so much expected of her, acting-wise)... There are countless actresses who could have played the part better and she was only cast for publicity reasons (IMO)... Still, yeah, it was - as you said - pretty good. [/rant]
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with you there. I did feel there was a certain...conviction, lacking.
 
ForEverAfter said:
Agreed, Devil's Advocate is an under-rated Pacino.
Great cast, too. The Charlize Theron parts are seriously disturbing.

Last movie I watched: The Colony with Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton.
It isn't an utterly awful post-apocalyptic film, but it certainly isn't great.
I'm sick of seeing girls wearing mascara in post-apocalyptic scenarios.
And, I could've done without the zombies (or whatever they were).
I liked the lack of a crowd-pleasing family friendly atmosphere.
A large number of the main characters die throughout the film.
Some of them are executed, point blank, by the colony.

I can't give it much more than 1.5 / 5, but I did enjoy it.



Would have been a much better film without Aniston in the lead... It might have been a career best for her, but that's not really saying much (and, personally, I thought she was better in The Good Girl when there wasn't so much expected of her, acting-wise)... There are countless actresses who could have played the part better and she was only cast for publicity reasons (IMO)... Still, yeah, it was - as you said - pretty good. [/rant]
Click to expand...

I have that impression too. Specially when I watch an older film and see how they could use cast someone different, but not so important then.
Sometimes we see a lot of potential in these secondary actors and can also recognize why the protagonist was chosen simply to publicity issues and box office..
 
"the tribe" it's about a school for the deaf in ukraine. there is like a gang of kids that pimp the girls at a truck stop and new kid falls for one of the girls, violence ensues. it was entertaining but kinda weird viewing experience because all you hear is like ambient sounds. don't think i ever watched a film with only sign language and there isn't any subtitles when they sign but it's easy to follow by body language and such. recommended for something different...

trailer
 
Wild (spoilers)

NSFW:
Reese Witherspoon with dirt on her face, wandering around in the desert. A bunch of flashbacks and flashback-montages revealing the back story and her relationship with Laura Dern (her mother). There's all sorts of emotive stuff in the flashbacks - infidelity, drug use, cancer, even a scene completely out of nowhere where they shoot a horse in the face... This is how we know Witherspoon's character is troubled and why she is in the desert. It isn't revealed through her acting or through character interactions. It's entirely revealed through (mostly dialogue free) flashbacks / montages... I'm not a big fan of flashbacks, especially when they're supposed to be a character thinking back in real time... And I'm not a big fan of montages, full stop... So flashback montages representing the unfolding memories of a protagonist in real time is a trifecta of shit for me... unless it's done exceptionally well, which this isn't... Most of the stuff set in the present, with Reese walking through the desert, is too slow... and there's some tonal inconsistency. Like when she puts on her pack near the beginning of the film and can hardly lift it or when she's struggling to erect a tent. These moments felt like they were lifted straight out of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond... I didn't feel like I got to know her character, nor did I think Witherspoon or Dern (who were both nominated) stepped out of their acting comfort zones. Witherspoon doesn't wear as much make-up and she shows her tits. That's about it. There's nothing interesting about either performance. You could pretty much cut and paste Dern (who I think is a great actress, don't get me wrong) from other films. Certainly not career best performances from either of them. They were nominated because of the type of film this is, not because of their performances... But, what type of film is it? An empowering film for women? An artistic film about a drug addict on a path to redemption? For me, try as it might, it doesn't qualify as either. I was not very impressed.


2 stars.
 
^had you read the book or were aware of the story that inspired the film prior to seeing it?

...kytnism...:|
 
in that case, your review of the film makes perfect sense.

...kytnism...:|
 
The film should be able to stand on it's own legs...
If it relies on audience members being familiar with the source material, it is a poor adaptation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top