Loik V credern

Also Suicide Club which has some of the strongest imagery of anything. And Strange Circus which is mental. Some of Takashi Miike’s recent stuff like Lesson Of The Evil and As The Gods Will i love and Audition is my favourite horror film. He just acts as a for hire seemingly for anything however trashy*, and Sion Sono despite being more of an auteur putting more of his style and his writing in his films still can churn out some rubbish. *Terra Formers? Jo Jo’s Bizarre Adventure: Diamond Is Unbeakable - Chapter 1??

about 5 minutes ago actually. “A notorious criminal must must break an evil curse in order to rescue an abducted girl who has mysteriously disappeared.” poor easily weirded out Nicolas. *shakes head* Sounds like a cutscene from a Japanese horror. Imdb says its in post production so it's too late for anyone to back out. another way to phrase the plot:

Presumably they thought Bailly and Lindelof and Matic could defend though. And i think they can.

The worse thing Woodward does is refuses to meet the people campaigning for football staff to be paid the 'national living wage'. They've asked repeatedly and he just ignores them.

I see this be mentioned a lot in the Woodward bashing, the denying Mourinho a defender thing in his 3rd season. The 'why is Maguire good enough now but he wasn't last season?' thing. (I've been on the guardian this morning) Mourinho was given £124m in 3 seasons for 4 defensive players. Are we supposing Mourinho had no say in those? Because most managers don't either. Klopp and Pochettino have admitted as much. Given Mourinho wasn't getting the best out of any of the defenders he brought in and was bullying a young talent that was there before he arrived (Shaw) why would Woodward trust Mourinho with more money? Mourinho also sold Blind who was adaptable across the back and who i thought was reliable and who seems to be doing well for Ajax, he scored his first senior hat trick whilst playing as a centre back last November and that Champions League run as well. United have needed a proper right back for years but Dalot was brought in and Mourinho let Tuanzebe and Fosu-Mensah go out on loan again despite them impressing in the few first team games they played in. It seems more like Bailly got another serious injury and pushed this move. If next season or the one after Solksjaer is still here and throws a tantrum in pre season because he's not being given another £30m+ for a centreback i don't think it'd be unreasonable to point to the amount spent in this window and say it's enough.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the thread. I didn't think you were mindmilling or know why you got so massively negged for some of your replies.

I spent ages on those posts.

Can't believe you dissed Home Alone. Who does that? Is it even that simple when you factor in the obscenely rich extended family bullying one of their youngest and neglecting to notice they left him at home before boarding a flight who are the real criminals right i like the bit where the boy tortures the old men by setting up booby traps and they cartoonishly keep getting hurt.

Nah i have no issues with Wolf Of Wall Street because it indulges Belfort, more that it's boring and i feel like I've seen excessive drug taking arseholery a million times. I liked the scene where he quickly shows how adept he is at lieing on the phone and everyone behind him stops and stares in amazement. But we've seen Leo confidently con before in Catch Me If You Can where he plays a more interesting sympathic character and shares a just as interesting relationship with the FBI agent. That film is so much more fun and creative. And anyway in Wolf Of Wall Street there isn't much more actually showing his selling skills, he goes crazy quickly. It's far too long and the drugged up physical comedy drive the car scene is funny but not worth enduring the 30 minutes that it sits between. Does it hold a mirror up to the audience because we're complicit in constructing a society that allowed this fraud to occur or because it's to lull us into secretly gradually thinking we would quite like to act as depraved as these people were. I remember Richard Bacon mentioning it like; yeah i kind of watched it and er wanted to be them. But that's very much something Richard Bacon would say. He probably votes Liberal Democrats as well. I wouldn't put any of those films as morally suspect, I'm not that sensitive. The Wolf Of Wall Street isn't just a character piece of someone unhinged and pathetic who commits his life ruining acts alone, he's enabled throughout by our corrupt society that's still felt today. I'm in the minority on The Wolf Of Wall Street though. I think people give it more credit than it's worth because it's Scorsese, thinking there must be more it to it. I don't think Scorsese has anything to say.

That poster because its title spins around and switches from black to white is more exciting than it has any right to be and i don't even like nolan except the prestige

lol ok i don't mind. I woke up at 2am and decided to stay awake. This thread is gonna be annoying for you because many people agree with you about Gladiator (and Star Wars too) but in this thread it seems you're in the minority. I've just never really understood the criticism because the film excels in the areas it tries to. And it annoys me more just because i look at peoples criticisms of certain films and then apply that level of analysis to other acclaimed films (especially ones they like) and can't grasp the vast differences being spoken about. This not something to get hung up on, people have different tastes. Reacting to film is the point, i look forward to what my thoughts will be after watching a film. Which is the most arrogant thing anyone could say. And i enjoy different angles on films. Armond White is like the biggest example of someone exaggerating his criticism towards films he might ordinarily just not take to because they're not to his tastes or he expected something else. So he reacts to what he thinks is 12 Years A Slave's violent nihilism and thinks its relentless beatings of its characters is a contrived cheap ploy by the director to ellicit emotion. But then he shares another film that deals with racism and slavery and it's something obscure and lacking the dramatic weight 12 Years has. The Star Wars ruined cinema thing i thought applied to just the sci fi genre. Like sci fi pre Star Wars was largely about ideas, but Star Wars was about spaceships and lightsabres and that quiet 70s eerie sci fi stopped being produced. Shawshank Redemption is another film that Real Film Fans might be snobby about. Even the film's cinematographer thinks the film lacks a grit, is too soft for his taste. I can't remember Deakins' exact words or re-find where he said it but it was along those lines, though he's proud of the shots he got and the film's enduring legacy. Clearly Shawshank is meant to be a classic American film focussing on characters, it's straight forward. What it sets out to achieve it does brilliantly. It doesn't aim low, it's not bland and safe, neither is it peak cinema but the people who love it know that. No one wants it to be obtuse, moody woth long uninterrupted takes. It's just a great film to watch with great scenes, great characters. I defy anyone to watch it for the first time without knowing its no.1 ranked film on imdb status and not be compelled. Unless you hate prison films. The opera scene, Brooks being released from prison but not having a place in a society anymore that has moved on, in contrast to his veteran status in prison where he was the respected old man who everyone went to for advice. Red merely laments; 'he should have died in here'. That's all interesting stuff no one can easily dismiss. And very sad too. I don't think there's a strain of sentimentality there. Red's narration about how Andy was different to anyone he'd met inside, that he had a way of walking as though he didn't have a care in the world. Then you see him strolling along like he's in the park, skipping stones across a peaceful lake. I love that characterisation. Film definitely should have ended with Red saying 'i hope...' on the bus though. It's not that strange that a lot of people would think of it as their favourite film and one of the best they've seen. If you're looking for more you'll find more elsewhere, but other films will excel in different areas but not necessarily characterisation and story. No one would tell someone whose favourite song is by, i dunno LCD System that only The Best Of Bach is worthy.

Because Aliens is full of complex ethics and hidden psychology? It has a badass heroine and obvious (literally a repeat of Alien) and generic (though well played) sniveling corporate creep who'd sell human life for money (surprise!). Then a slew of total idiots. A badass heroine who has experienced true horror, swears to never put herself in that position of being within 4 million miles of that thing yet goes back anyway...because. I think honestly half of the backlash is because real film fans resent certain mainstream films becoming extremely popular, winning awards and being watched by half the population on Earth as opposed to their overlooked gem 12000 people have seen. We all have overlooked gems! watch bullet ballet everyone But i can't deny their strengths aren't characterisation, writing and strong casting. Tbh most films i watch fail at that, it's only the best tv where characters shine. But tv often can't capture the raw authenticity of life as film can. I watch films as much as a visual document on the time, in terms of places, in terms of cinema. But nothing compares to, i dunno, episode 5 season 3 of Mad Men. Gladiator is what it is, you're completely invested in the injustice that befalls this great general, leader of men. You believe in his nobility, believe he's spent years away from his family in the cold travelling huge distances, one war after another. You feel his position, the futility of being a slave who will never be able to get anywhere near the emperor. It is crowdpleasing. But if it wasn't it'd be terrible. You want him to get the crowd on side, for Maximus to reveal himself, risk his life and chance for revenge and use the cheers and Commodus' inherent cowardice to look him in the eyes and delay the inevitable. You want Commodus to feel the humiliation of watching this man be momentarily invincible. You want them to fight at the end and for Commodus to die slowly and painfully. And you want Maximus to not even care. In fact, no one cares, cheesy as hell carrying Maximus' body off and leaving Commodus' but fuck it gets away with it. It showed perfectly the nature of power and how subservient all the guards were because they were forced to be. Anyone can plot the film out within 30 minutes yeah. If people want to delve into the complex intricacies of roman politics they can read books about it.

Often when a popular film i like is ripped apart i just find it hard to understand how the person criticising would possibly alter what the film ending up being, the exact same criticisms easily levelled at numerous other classics that might be more austere but lack the fun characterisation the popular film excels at. I convinced myself otherwise at the time but i think Wolf of Wall Street is overated near intolerable derivative garbage with nothing to say, the response to it being either ‘it revels in the immorality of this character’ or ‘it revels in the immorality of this character and that’s the point’. The film could have punctuated the delirious lunacy with the real consequences outside of this financial bubble. Instead the real Jordan Belfort appears. Boogie Nights i thought had an effective turn from the glamour of porn to its ugliness. Is Maximus an angel? I think he was a bit stupid to not take Commodus’ hand when it was offered, his stubborn refusal and lack of foresight sealed his family’s fate right there. He should have plotted in secret, there is another film there. Gladiator makes a lot of interesting points, ‘Rome is the mob’, ‘gain the crowd and you gain your freedom’. They were gonna include how gladiators would have sponsors and advertise but thought people wouldn’t believe it. The film wouldn’t be improved if ‘he’s too much of angel’ meant altering some of his decisions where compassion got the better of him. He didn’t want to try killing Commodus in front of the kid, nor execute the fighter despite the crowd cheering. He’s put in situations where he’s forced to fight to survive then realises...yeahh im not here for this. Also has no issue with knifing tigers. Phoenix is phenomenal at playing surly and wounded. The scene with him and his father is exceptional. ‘Your failure as a son is my father as a father’. Or however it goes. You get a sense of Maximus’ brilliance on the battlefield, and the pride Aurelius has in him. It suggests but doesn’t delve into the politics of Rome too much because it’s not about that. It’s a straight revenge story but the characters aren’t simplistic. Commodus isn’t one dimensional in his evil. I love the line by Phoenix: ‘if they don’t respect me how can they ever love me?’ Not difficult to be sympathetic towards Commodus as horrible as he was gloating about the deaths of Maximus’ wife and son. It is what it is and focusses on characterisation which it nails with its writing and acting. They’re all very convincing, as is Oliver Reed as the slave owner. Hearing him speak about the colloseum you’re convinced he’s recalling memories as opposed to reciting lines. There’s plenty of revered arthouse films that lack the strong characterisation and the intense gripping way Gladiator captures those key scenes.

I love Gladiator.