Agreed. It doesn’t go over the top, no actor tried to outdo anybody else. It puts “The Big Short” to shame without acting like it’s trying to. Skillful, mature filmmaking. I especially liked Irons’ cameo as Mr. Big. The way the younger “go-getter” guys talk so specifically about exactly how much money they make and save reminds me of at least five people I know.
Irons nails it. The whole scene he is nothing but cordial and friendly, and yet you're terrified of him the entire time.
Mothman Prophecies I have no idea why this movie got scorched by the critics, I think it’s really good. Richard Gere does a really good job of not trying to chew the scenery and let’s the movie sort of envelop him. It’s really creepy throughout and scary in some parts. And in the end, nothing is really explained and you still have no idea if it’s mass hysteria or if the Mothman is real. 8.5/10
I agree the film has a great menace to it—- the entire point is that it’s leading you to believe something horrible is going to happen, and it sure as hell does. And in the end nothing is answered, especially the title and it’s bizarre subject. With that, this film is what Cloud Starchaser used as an excuse to stalk Ivanka Trump.
He wanted her on his superhero team along with Tucker Max. I found his long-winded proposal for said team not too long ago. I’ll see if I can dig it up. But yeah, this movie is really good and holds up far better than say any of the Paranormal Activity movies. There is a member of this board that is from that town in West Virginia so I’d be interested to hear his take on it.
Sicario 2: Day of the Plothole Two years is old enough, right? It's probably been reviewed here before but I just saw it yesterday ($6 bluray) so my take is fresh. I'd heard it wasn't as good as the first, but that's typical with sequels to greatness, so whatever. But with this attention to detail, I was beginning to suspect... Spoiler If you don't see it, Spanish has a different grammar structure than English. It's not enough to just translate the words, you gotta order them different. "Matamoros Cartel Leader's Lawyer Assassinated" is a fine headline in Yankee speak. In this version of Spanish, it's gibberish. Besides that, they spent more time trying to recapture the magic of Part 1 with disparate "Hot Cartel Action" set pieces than they did writing a script that didn't rely on improbable coincidence and "it just so happens that" bullshit. And they really lost the trail towards the end, finale made no fucking sense. Gotdamn, what a letdown. The reviews for this movie are positive to the point I honestly wonder if they didn't all mistakenly watch part 1 again. Seriously.
Gotti (1996) This was an HBO movie and it is so much better than the piece of shit with Travolta from a few years ago. Armand Asante, who really should be a bigger actor than he is, plays an actually convincing depiction of John Gotti. The rest of the cast is a who’s-who of actors that then star in The Sopranos a few years later. It wasn’t perfect and the story jumps around quite a bit, but it’s at least watchable and entertaining. But as someone who reads a ton about the mob, it’s just not very accurate. Overall, though, it’s still worth watching. 7/10
Asante is the whole movie, and yes he deserved a better career.. He is a slick and brutal character, perfectly cast in the role. The supporting cast has great character actors but they don’t do much and the movie itself is okay, but Assante is completely awesome.
With a better screenplay, the movie could have been up there with Goodfellas. However, the directing is still better than the piece of shit E from Entourage put out.
Kevin Connelly was the most (rightfully) despised main character on television— so despised that he couldn’t act anymore. So he directed the most despised film of the past ten years. Can you say “a career in Hallmark Films”, ladies and gentlemen?
Watched Bram Stoker's Dracula for the first time this past weekend. Man, it's been a long time since I watched a good movie that wasn't just all CGI effects. There was emotive, dramatic acting, great physical effects including silhouette and light play, and a storyline that kept me engaged and wondering what would happen next. I haven't read the novel and was only familiar with the current stereotypes of Dracula so it was total unknown territory for me. Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, and Anthony Hopkins friggin killed it. Keanu Reeves was definitely the weak link in the cast but with all the other heavy lifters I really didn't notice his bad accent and tepid performance except in the beginning. There was a scene in the Witcher books were Regis talks about, paraphrasing, how stereotypes around vampires (the sensual sucking of blood, etc) was created by sexually repressed religious people. It didn't really click with me because most of the stereotypes of Dracula that I was aware are more cartoonish but holy shit, this movie was sexsauce.
That version of Dracula as close to the Stoker novel as a movie will ever get. It also mixes in Dracula’s true history (in the opening act) and uses Hopkin’s narration to troll vampires tropes in movies. And, as you mentioned they used every old-fashioned movie trick ever imagined to create the special effects. It was as difficult to shoot as doing two movies at once for Coppola because of that, but it paid off in spades. One near fatal flaw is casting Keanu to play Jon Harker. Good lord, what a gaff that was. The best casting was Monica Belucci, for reasons that do not need explanation (she’s the third bride).
In the Line of Fire I don’t know why, but I was bored out of my mind by this movie, and I love Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. There was just something that about it that felt perfunctory. And holy shit, Eastwood’s character #MeToo’s the shit out of Rene Russo’s character for the first 30 minutes. It’s not really that important, but it was a little jarring. Overall, some of Eastwood’s one-liners were hilarious and perfect, but the entire movie was just dull, regardless of what critics say. 4/10
In the words of Mos Def, "pure power don't powertrip". Irons exudes pure power, he's the only shark in that entire tank.
John Wick 1&2: Never seen these and still need to see the 3rd. I didnt realize through all the praise I heard that this film franchise is more of "so bad it's good" type film not a truly quality movie. It is more a Fast and Furious level than a Die Hard or Terminator 2. We accept it as camp. With the praise I heard I had hoped it was the latter. There are some really bad and clunky things about these movies that are only saved by Keanu Reeves likability, dead simple plot, and the choreographed fight scenes. Most of the dialogue outside of Reeves and McShane is flat out terrible. Theon Greyjoy can play a wimpering dickhead as well as the best of them but they had him run with a terrible fake Russian accent that he could barely cover his cockney accent with. Just hard to watch. The actor that plays Ryan Oreilly on Oz and Rampage in the Progressive commercials was thrown in as comic relief and was less than worthless as a character. The final bad guy in the first film as an uninspiring Russian mafia boss caricature. The Italian bad guy was a little better in the second. When they gave John a suit made out of bullet proof fiber my brain officially turned off. "Ill hold up my lepel to shield my face from oncoming fire!" I did like the choreographed fight scenes, they have a stand out style that is it's own which is what make the films fun. Though with the plot armor there isnt any stakes in it, every, single, bad guy is going to have his head smashed into a table and shot point blank. The concept of a secret assassin society was fun and they didnt over complicate the plot. Man seeks revenge for killed puppy and stolen car. These alone make this better than most of the other dreck. Fun action films but ehh. Im sure it could become a Fast level franchise if they wanted. 6/10
The movie is substantially different than Bram Stoker's book, but in my view, it's better for it. I revisited this one myself some years ago and was very impressed. Here is what I wrote at the time; "Francis Ford Coppola's version of the story, starring a litany of famous actors, with Gary Oldman as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing being highlights, and Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker being a lowlight. Overall, it's a visually magnificent, interesting take on the classic tale. The movie is aesthetically sumptuous, with outstanding use of color, and many memorable, gorgeous scenes. But it's also a clever re-imagining of Dracula; while mostly faithful to the source, it presents the story in a far more lurid manner. Protagonists are less moral, there is a good deal of infidelity, and Dracula is more sympathetic while still being a ruthless killer. Most importantly, however, Mina is genuinely in love with the Count, and gives in to him of her free will. In fact, I consider that an improvement over Stoker's original, as it makes the work more interesting than mere Gothic horror, and doesn't clash with the other elements of the story. In fact, this is my favorite Dracula adaptation." The only part I would add to this now is just how sublime Oldman's performance is. There were a lot of fine actors in the movie, but years later, their performances fade from my consciousness, Hopkins included. It may be good, but it's nothing special. But Oldman's turn as Dracula? Simply incredible, the most emotional, memorable part of the film. On the one hand, he inhibits all the classic aspects of Dracula; that of the creepy old lech, the powerful demonic monster, and the Christoper Lee-inspired seducer. But on the other hand, he also plays a suffering, very mortal man, with pain in his eyes and a trembling brow, not only in the terrific opening scene, but in his interactions with Mina. Somehow, Oldman is able to do BOTH and not have these two sides of the character clash with one another. It's utterly remarkable.
Depends! If you disagree with Coppola's Dracula being the finest adaptation of the novel, I might let you slide. But disagreeing with how great Oldman's performance is? It's an avalanche of reds for you, sir!
Fatal Attraction is yet another movie that was once considered a classic and is now accidental high-camp cult comedy (eg New Jack City). Anne Archer is hot as fuck and Glenn Close looks like emaciated dog shit. What.... what am I watching here? This movie, when I was a kid, rocked the western world. I never can get past the very simple aesthetic going on here, even as a kid. Perhaps it was an allegory on drug addiction? Michael Douglas had WAY too many violent, bad sex scenes back in the day that is for sure.