Controversial film opinions

[ZOK]

11 hours ago, CarloOos said:

The thing with the John Wick films is that they snuck in a subtle genre shift. The original was an actual thriller with some surprisingly decent action scenes, whereas the sequels are straight up martial arts films (with guns). Pushing the limits of the choreography is now the whole purpose of those films, not the plot, which only exists to serve the set-pieces.
 

It was the right decision imo, you’ll never re-bottle the build up and release of the original so you may as well laser-focus on what people enjoyed and see how far you can take it. I get why some people bounce off them, but for me they’re the closest thing we’ve ever got to a big-budget version of 90s Hong Kong films.

The key difference with those 90s HK flicks is they always remembered to hang the action off a vaguely interesting and coherent story.

[ZOK]

They should just have called it John Shit.

[Couch Corpse]

8 hours ago, womblingfree said:

Natalie Portman is rubbish in Leon.

Wrong! She's rubbish in everything, but at least in Leon she had the excuse of being a kid.

[Festoon]

6 hours ago, Couch Corpse said:

Wrong! She's rubbish in everything, but at least in Leon she had the excuse of being a kid.

 

Absolutely this. She's completely wooden and stilted. I think directors get confused because she's very pretty.

[BossSaru]

12 hours ago, Waggo said:

By default Ben Afleck is the best movie Batman.

 

Michael Keaton was great as Bruce Wayne but not so good a Batman, While Christian Bale was a brilliant Batman but a piss poor Wayne.  

 

Afleck is decentish as both and so wins in the all rounder stakes.

 

Edit:  Shit I forgot about Pattison, but again he was a good Batman but poor Bruce Wayne so the arguement still stands.

 

Will Arnett is the best movie Batman.

[McFly]

23 hours ago, womblingfree said:

Natalie Portman is rubbish in Leon.

Heat would be so much better without her scene too,as much for time as anything else

[Monkeyboy]

Speed Racer is shit.

[Ry]

On 05/08/2022 at 16:16, womblingfree said:

Terminator 2 is the watered down Scrappy Doo PG Terminator.

 

Silence of the Lambs isn’t that good at all.

 

Natalie Portman is rubbish in Leon.

 

You crazy bastard!

[Tempy]

On 04/08/2022 at 13:09, DualSense said:

 

 

“Hello. I am Charles Petrescu!”

[Loik V credern]

The Northman is not very good and I think people are going a bit overboard in praising its animalistic wildness meaning much, as though every other film is lacking something like true cinema grit because they don't have Alexander Skarsgård yelling with fury over and over or showing various rituals.

 

The praise is so much it's like people are declaring a void that the film is filling, it's very reaching and I know it is because that early one shot action sequence is just fine, not as impressive as the ones in Children of Men, True Detective or The Revenant, gritty and real sure but that's to be expected. I listened to a review where they were losing their minds at Skarsgård climbing the wall with an axe. 

[K]

One-shot action sequences are generally shit and mostly just a way for directors to show off. Their purpose is generally to just draw your attention to how shit-hot the director is and how brilliantly they are juggling the technical and logistical aspects of film-making. Look at me, look at how long this shot is going on for. Surely it's going to end now? Think again, sucker! This shot, like my dick, just keeps going on and on whether you're enjoying it or not. What's that? You want to be immersed in the scene and not think about how it was executed, rather than boggling at how great I, the director, am at choreographing all this very difficult stuff? But if you were immersed in the scene, then you wouldn't be aware of my mastery of the form in cinema. There would be very few, if any, youtube videos about how clever and audacious I am, which I think we can all agree is far from optimal.

 

There are some good uses for long takes, but I always find it's rarely for action. The scenes in 1917 where they walk from HQ to the front lines worked really well because it actually took you on that journey from relative safety to chaos, and that wouldn't have been as effective with cuts. The battle scenes in the same film had so many absurd contrivances just to maintain the one shot that I thought they were less effective than they would have been if the film had been made more traditionally. And of course Hard Boiled's hospital scene is pretty amazing, but that's sort of the cinematic equivalent of Jackie Chan hanging off the back of a bus for real, and is more of a stunt than a pragmatic choice.

[CarloOos]

6 hours ago, K said:

One-shot action sequences are generally shit and mostly just a way for directors to show off. Their purpose is generally to just draw your attention to how shit-hot the director is and how brilliantly they are juggling the technical and logistical aspects of film-making. Look at me, look at how long this shot is going on for. Surely it's going to end now? Think again, sucker! This shot, like my dick, just keeps going on and on whether you're enjoying it or not. What's that? You want to be immersed in the scene and not think about how it was executed, rather than boggling at how great I, the director, am at choreographing all this very difficult stuff? But if you were immersed in the scene, then you wouldn't be aware of my mastery of the form in cinema. There would be very few, if any, youtube videos about how clever and audacious I am, which I think we can all agree is far from optimal.

 

There are some good uses for long takes, but I always find it's rarely for action. The scenes in 1917 where they walk from HQ to the front lines worked really well because it actually took you on that journey from relative safety to chaos, and that wouldn't have been as effective with cuts. The battle scenes in the same film had so many absurd contrivances just to maintain the one shot that I thought they were less effective than they would have been if the film had been made more traditionally. And of course Hard Boiled's hospital scene is pretty amazing, but that's sort of the cinematic equivalent of Jackie Chan hanging off the back of a bus for real, and is more of a stunt than a pragmatic choice.

The pre-title sequence from Spectre epitomises this. There’s zero reason for it to be ‘one’ shot beyond pointless showboating, which falls flat anyway because of how obvious the stitches are.
 

I also found 1917 more contrived than immersive. Only just clocked that they’re literally the same director.

[Fierce Poodle]

7 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

The Northman is not very good and I think people are going a bit overboard in praising its animalistic wildness meaning much, as though every other film is lacking something like true cinema grit because they don't have Alexander Skarsgård yelling with fury over and over or showing various rituals.

 

The praise is so much it's like people are declaring a void that the film filling, it's very reaching and I know it is because that early one shot action sequence is just fine, not as impressive as the ones in Children of Men, True Detective or The Revenant, gritty and real sure but that's to be expected. I listened to a review where they were losing their minds at Skarsgård climbing the wall with an axe. 

If you’ve seen the Vikings TV series on Prime, nothing in The Northman will surprise you.

[Festoon]

39 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

The pre-title sequence from Spectre epitomises this. There’s zero reason for it to be ‘one’ shot beyond pointless showboating, which falls flat anyway because of how obvious the stitches are.
 

I also found 1917 more contrived than immersive. Only just clocked that they’re literally the same director.

 

One-shots that aren't - utterly daft.

 

Maybe Mendes is great as a theatre director but his films are dull and lifeless.

[Nick R]

8 hours ago, K said:

One-shot action sequences are generally shit and mostly just a way for directors to show off. Their purpose is generally to just draw your attention to how shit-hot the director is and how brilliantly they are juggling the technical and logistical aspects of film-making. Look at me, look at how long this shot is going on for.

...

You want to be immersed in the scene and not think about how it was executed, rather than boggling at how great I, the director, am at choreographing all this very difficult stuff? But if you were immersed in the scene, then you wouldn't be aware of my mastery of the form in cinema.

 

I suppose it depends on how much goodwill you have towards the film and its director. If you're well-disposed towards them, a complex uninterrupted take will come across as an impressive feat. (Rope is one of my favourite Hitchcock movies!) If you're not, it's self-indulgent showing off that adds nothing except being distracting. (Iñárritu's Birdman!)

 

I disagree with the idea that drawing your attention to a film's artificiality is a bad thing. I know people say things like "the best editing is invisible; as soon as you notice it, it's failed." But I disagree: being impressed with the techniques that went into making a film is a perfectly valid way of getting entertainment from it. I like seeing writers and directors showing off how clever they are!

 

I see an impressive stunt and think: "Wow, the person who performed that must have been really brave!" I see an impressive musical sequence and think: "Wow, doing that must have taken a lot of practice and coordination from all the dancers!" And I see an impressive long take and think: "Wow, doing that must have taken a lot of practice and coordination from the performers and cameraman and stagehands!" Why should the last one break my immersion any more than the other two?

 

With action scenes, benefits of doing stuff in one take are that it gives you a great idea if the geography of a set, and that it can do things like show that a particular bit of set isn't padded, then later in the same shot, show a stuntman hitting it hard. (It's easy to imagine a mat being moved into place during a cut between shots; but somehow, it's more of an illusion to move a mat into place while the camera is pointing the other way!) The trade-off is that each individual stunt - and its framing in the camera - probably won't be as perfectly executed as it would be in a conventionally edited version. The fight up the staircase in Tom Yum Goong/The Protector/Warrior King is a good example: the falls from height are more impressive because you've seen how high up the camera has travelled in an uninterpreted shot. But the goons waiting for their cue to attack the hero stand out more than they do elsewhere in the film.

 

 

As for 1917: I liked it, but despite the way it was promoted, it doesn't even really pretend to be one continuous take, because of

Spoiler

the bit in the middle where he gets knocked unconscious and we get a few seconds of a black screen! 

 

[Loik V credern]

On 08/08/2022 at 15:36, K said:

One-shot action sequences are generally shit and mostly just a way for directors to show off. Their purpose is generally to just draw your attention to how shit-hot the director is and how brilliantly they are juggling the technical and logistical aspects of film-making. Look at me, look at how long this shot is going on for. Surely it's going to end now? Think again, sucker! This shot, like my dick, just keeps going on and on whether you're enjoying it or not. What's that? You want to be immersed in the scene and not think about how it was executed, rather than boggling at how great I, the director, am at choreographing all this very difficult stuff? But if you were immersed in the scene, then you wouldn't be aware of my mastery of the form in cinema. There would be very few, if any, youtube videos about how clever and audacious I am, which I think we can all agree is far from optimal.

 

There are some good uses for long takes, but I always find it's rarely for action. The scenes in 1917 where they walk from HQ to the front lines worked really well because it actually took you on that journey from relative safety to chaos, and that wouldn't have been as effective with cuts. The battle scenes in the same film had so many absurd contrivances just to maintain the one shot that I thought they were less effective than they would have been if the film had been made more traditionally. And of course Hard Boiled's hospital scene is pretty amazing, but that's sort of the cinematic equivalent of Jackie Chan hanging off the back of a bus for real, and is more of a stunt than a pragmatic choice.

 

I agree about 1917 but not about one shots in general. I think cameras moving through walls and floating around with more use of drones now draw your attention, but all the ones I mentioned definitely increased the sense of realism because I never knew they were being used, I was engrossed enough that when I expected a cut and there wasn't one it was just more thrilling. The one near the end of Children of Men was talked about so expecting it ruined it, I was sitting there half thinking how long it's going to go on for, but the one on the road with the cars took me by surprise. There's stuntwork where you always see a cut from another angle and it doesn't do it, it keeps you in the car. 

 

The one in Oldboy is done for visual reasons. I want directors to be ambitious personally, as long as it serves the film. Like in Shame, the running. Birdman was about being bold anyway, I want directors to get get hold of the medium, use all variations. No one can bemoan how confidently Scorsese shoots and edits his films because you know you're in the hands of someone who really knows what he's doing. I mean, mostly in Goodfellas and Casino in particular, I don't think it's always evident. 

 

There's some sequences in one of the Bonds maybe or something like that which is like a videogame, a fight falling through a window, the camera following. 

 

If Boyle or a proper director got a chance at Bond and thought to themselves...'I really want a sequence where he takes out a whole building stealthily that's done in one take', I'd love that. 

 

The one in The Northman is so short I'm not sure it even counts, I'd rather it was just an action film and there were lots of audacious stuff Eggers was trying rather than the slog it was. 

[Loik V credern]

Paris, Texas is intolerably boring shit. 

[Plissken]

12 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

There's some sequences in one of the Bonds maybe or something like that which is like a videogame, a fight falling through a window, the camera following. 

 

Shanghai fight in Skyfall.  I thought that was a good use, because the camera wasn't whirling around, IIRC, it's about the silhouette and the background lighting.  But yes, a lot of them seem like just showing off.

 

[Chosty]

1 hour ago, Loik V credern said:

Paris, Texas is intolerably boring shit. 

It's not for everyone, but still...

 

DEAD INSIDE

[Loik V credern]

16 hours ago, Chosty said:

It's not for everyone, but still...

 

DEAD INSIDE

 

I am dead inside it's true, I don't know what's wrong with me, but still Paris, Texas is so bad. 

 

It shows again how for many cinema is at its best for them when it's about mood, romanticism and nostalgia. You attach that to a story that pretends it's human and you have something people will describe as 'magical'. And if another person describes a film with wide open deserts as utterly beautiful because wide open deserts generally are I'm going to start lynching people. It does have good cinematography, but if that's what people enjoy maybe just check out some photographers than indulging in this glacially paced turd. 

 

It's an utterly facile empty performative film and I'm kind of amazed people take it seriously, I didn't believe any of it but then maybe no one does as that isn't the point. Take the exact same dialogue, same characters, transport it to somewhere like Hull or something, strip its noir ish vibe away from it, no one would give a shit. 

 

I cannot imagine anyone fixated to the screen in that tortuous 45 minute ending conversation because the dialogue is in any way compelling, the characters in any way convincing, their apparent trauma rooted in any realism.

[Made of Ghosts]

Christian Bale is a terrible* actor. 

*I mean obviously not, he’s competent, but he’s so Actingy. When I’m watching him I always think “this is someone Acting”. It’s most glaringly obvious in Vice when he plays opposite Amy Adams, and he’s got the prosthetics and the tics and habits and so in but you can still see Christian Bale there. While she’s not doing any of that stuff but she’s so perfectly natural that I kind of forget it’s her. 

[Festoon]

10 minutes ago, Made of Ghosts said:

Christian Bale is a terrible* actor. 

*I mean obviously not, he’s competent, but he’s so Actingy. When I’m watching him I always think “this is someone Acting”. It’s most glaringly obvious in Vice when he plays opposite Amy Adams, and he’s got the prosthetics and the tics and habits and so in but you can still see Christian Bale there. While she’s not doing any of that stuff but she’s so perfectly natural that I kind of forget it’s her. 

 

I agree with that. He's from the Connery school of charisma.

 

Andrea Riseborough for me is an actor. I often don't even recognise her in things as she vanishes.

[JamesC]

16 minutes ago, Made of Ghosts said:

Christian Bale is a terrible* actor. 

*I mean obviously not, he’s competent, but he’s so Actingy. When I’m watching him I always think “this is someone Acting”. It’s most glaringly obvious in Vice when he plays opposite Amy Adams, and he’s got the prosthetics and the tics and habits and so in but you can still see Christian Bale there. While she’s not doing any of that stuff but she’s so perfectly natural that I kind of forget it’s her. 

Scenes like this always make me think of that bit in The Rocketeer, when Timothy Dalton is playing The Laughing Bandit and says to the extra "Act..but don't act like you're acting".

[Turino 73]

On 08/08/2022 at 20:47, CarloOos said:

The pre-title sequence from Spectre epitomises this. There’s zero reason for it to be ‘one’ shot beyond pointless showboating, which falls flat anyway because of how obvious the stitches are.
 

I also found 1917 more contrived than immersive. Only just clocked that they’re literally the same director.

That opening pre title shot in Contact though... Muah

[Turino 73]

Here's a controversial one for real.

I think in order to make great cinema, like truly the greatest cinema, you should be willing to put yourself in physical or mental danger. From Jackie Chan's life threatening stunts to Sharon Stone's exploitative moment to Matthew McCaunaghey's drastic weight loss... the most iconic moments are captured when the boundaries are pushed, and I would rather have those moments at the expense of someones boundaries than them not exist at all. (yes I am aware that 2 of those 3 were consensual and all that that entails)

[Loik V credern]

46 minutes ago, Made of Ghosts said:

Christian Bale is a terrible* actor. 

*I mean obviously not, he’s competent, but he’s so Actingy. When I’m watching him I always think “this is someone Acting”. It’s most glaringly obvious in Vice when he plays opposite Amy Adams, and he’s got the prosthetics and the tics and habits and so in but you can still see Christian Bale there. While she’s not doing any of that stuff but she’s so perfectly natural that I kind of forget it’s her. 

 

I think that's more just the hammed up role he was asked to do, as in the David O Russell films. 

 

I like actors who inject something individually off about the dialogue they deliver, it's not a performance often mentioned but it's this injection of freshness that impressed me so much about Rescue Dawn. I didn't see a star there at all, just an actor. So many actors, even the biggest established ones just go through the motions I think of what they do, but really well, whereas some approach it new.

 

I think you can see this in The Nice Guys, has Gosling just got the juicier role or is he more able to conjure more from his lines, added annoyance and impatience other actors won't express. Because Russell Crowe in that film is just...there. Doing what he usually does, not bad, but nothing noteworthy either. 

 

Would Phillip Seymour Hoffman be another you say you notice acting? He’s just so watchable though. Like the Bale in Rescue Dawn thing, in Ides of March or Moneyball, he seems to inject a realness to it, like not an actor performing but someone you believe lives it. That role Hoffman always took, the tired assistant who has been doing it too long, I don't think there's anyone better at that. There's always like a pause then matter of fact bluntness that's so good and kills the lead's ideas. 

[Made of Ghosts]

27 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

Would Phillip Seymour Hoffman be another you say you notice acting? He’s just so watchable though. Like the Bale in Rescue Dawn thing, in Ides of March or Moneyball, he seems to inject a realness to it, like not an actor performing but someone you believe lives it. That role Hoffman always took, the tired assistant who has been doing it too long, I don't think there's anyone better at that. There's always like a pause then matter of fact bluntness that's so good and kills the lead's ideas. 

Funnily enough I was just thinking of him as a point of comparison. He does some of the same things “on paper” but no, he’s one of my favourite actors and I always enjoy watching him. 
 

If you saw that Who Wants To Be A Millionaire thing with Michael Sheen as Chris Tarrant, that was a similar experience for me - some of his Tarrant-isms are uncanny but i almost would’ve preferred someone not trying to do an impression at all. 

[Turino 73]

28 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

I think that's more just the hammed up role he was asked to do, as in the David O Russell films. 

 

I like actors who inject something individually off about the dialogue they deliver, it's not a performance often mentioned but it's this injection of freshness that impressed me so much about Rescue Dawn. I didn't see a star there at all, just an actor. So many actors, even the biggest established ones just go through the motions I think of what they do, but really well, whereas some approach it new.

 

I think you can see this in The Nice Guys, has Gosling just got the juicier role or is he more able to conjure more from his lines, added annoyance and impatience other actors won't express. Because Russell Crowe in that film is just...there. Doing what he usually does, not bad, but nothing noteworthy either. 

 

Would Phillip Seymour Hoffman be another you say you notice acting? He’s just so watchable though. Like the Bale in Rescue Dawn thing, in Ides of March or Moneyball, he seems to inject a realness to it, like not an actor performing but someone you believe lives it. That role Hoffman always took, the tired assistant who has been doing it too long, I don't think there's anyone better at that. There's always like a pause then matter of fact bluntness that's so good and kills the lead's ideas. 

Crowe is absolutely sterling in Nice Guys. It's the classic double act. it's the Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon straight guy role. He's allowing Gosling to shine by being the rockbed quiet tortured soul. If they were both goofing it wouldn't work at all, it'd be annoying. It's PERFECT

Great film

[Loik V credern]

2 hours ago, DualSense said:

Yes the interplay is perfect. If you don’t get that then did you get the film at all?

 

No I'm completely thick, you got me. I entirely expected Crowe's character to have the exact same personality as Gosling's character. Contrasting personalities?? Madness. No it's about how an actor delivers his lines, you could swap the roles they play around (however unnecessary a casting choice that would be) and Gosling would offer more because he's just more present and creative in his approach. Crowe resurrecting his LA Confidential hard man was an easy casting fit and the right one sure. 

 

Gosling gave a lot to The Nice Guys that had his role been played by Chris Pine or Chris Evans or whoever all the subtleties would have been lost. He injects humour with his facial expressions and timing where there isn't any. No other actor is doing that hilarious scream, no other actor is being funny being annoyed. I think people are overlooking how much an actor brings to scenes that isn't in the script or driven by the director, taking it as a given that Gosling's character is automatically the funnier one. 

 

Crowe in his expected to be funny scenes on his own adds almost nothing because he's not good at comedy. He's fine overall and it's not an issue because Gosling is that good. But replace him with most other actors and most of those scenes are nowhere near as funny and the film is nowhere near as good. 

 

Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon/Knights are films where Jackie Chan plays the straight serious guy but is often as funny. Whether it's his reactions to what his partner is doing or physical stuff like leaping away as Chris Tucker helplessly fires at the villain, or unexpected behaviour fitting of the character like the backstretching scene with the sex worker in Shanghai Knights. Maybe they're just written in a way that gives Jackie more room or maybe he's already generally funny. 

 

Maybe imagine Jake Gyllenhaul in Gosling's role, Gosling in Crowe's. Who would bring more humour? Gosling in 2009 was sacked from The Lovely Bones for turning up with a beer belly because that's how he saw the part as the dad. 

 

I love The Nice Guys like, want a sequel more than any other film, they have great chemistry but Gosling is everything to it. 

[Turino 73]

I wasn't taking anything away from Gosling. I was merely stating that Crowe is just as perfectly cast. Do I see that role of washed up hard guy the same if Laurence Fishburne, Sam Worthington or Arnold Schwarzenegger plays it? No, I absolutely do not. You need fat Gladiator to make that work.