[tdockweiler]

Lost City if Z - 5.5/10

Most disappointing movie of all year. I was really looking forward to this too.
So many things wrong with this movie and my list would be a mile long.

The way they made the movie just made it hard for you to get into.
You never really feel like you're there with the characters and it never feels realistic enough.
They are starving and doing terrible in the jungle at one point and it really doesn't seem so bad.

For each scene it's was like a requirement for someone to suck all the life out of it and make it as dull as possible.
The main actor at times felt like he was reading through his lines as if he was sleep walking with his eyes open.
His acting was just strange. I'm sure that was just the requirement of his role, but even his son was a far better actor than him.

At no time did I feel anything for it's characters or even care. The one time I nearly did was when his son told his father than he pretty much abandoned them and was never around.

The very last part was really infuriating. You just had to know what happened to it's characters but they go on and on with this sort of distraction. Terrible ending too.

I also seriously could not believe my eyes when they put a WWI scene in this movie. Even if it was in the book they should have shortened it.

There's a few decent scenes, but not many. Robert Pattinson was pretty good in his role.

Suggestion: Watch Aguirre, the wrath of God instead!

 

[WraithApe]

Lost City if Z - 5.5/10

Most disappointing movie of all year. I was really looking forward to this too.
So many things wrong with this movie and my list would be a mile long.

The way they made the movie just made it hard for you to get into.
You never really feel like you're there with the characters and it never feels realistic enough.
They are starving and doing terrible in the jungle at one point and it really doesn't seem so bad.

For each scene it's was like a requirement for someone to suck all the life out of it and make it as dull as possible.
The main actor at times felt like he was reading through his lines as if he was sleep walking with his eyes open.
His acting was just strange. I'm sure that was just the requirement of his role, but even his son was a far better actor than him.

At no time did I feel anything for it's characters or even care. The one time I nearly did was when his son told his father than he pretty much abandoned them and was never around.

The very last part was really infuriating. You just had to know what happened to it's characters but they go on and on with this sort of distraction. Terrible ending too.

I also seriously could not believe my eyes when they put a WWI scene in this movie. Even if it was in the book they should have shortened it.

There's a few decent scenes, but not many. Robert Pattinson was pretty good in his role.

Suggestion: Watch Aguirre, the wrath of God instead!

Spot on T-Dock! Yes, the WW1 trench scene was a real lowlight. It had all the congruity of a Family Guy flashback...

 

[Hutnicks]

Spot on T-Dock! Yes, the WW1 trench scene was a real lowlight. It had all the congruity of a Family Guy flashback...

Peter fighting the chicken could not have but helped the scene. Or the clown suit in Vietnam might have worked as well.

 

[castleofargh]

lost city of Z maybe 6/10 yeah.
to me it wasn't bad. but it was an absolute disappointment. many scenes had such potential, they could have used them to create some deep moments like in The Mission(encounters, struggles etc #nospoiler). instead a situation is put into place, annndddd it's gone. let's move on to something boring and not really related to make sure nobody has time to feel anything. I know it's easy to be a critic, but I wish they had removed many scenes entirely, to give more time for more crucial moments.
I could also have done with a few more pretty panoramas, it's cliché(literally) but I expect lots of beautiful pictures from any adventurer movie.
a missed opportunity.

 

[Double-A]

Punch Drunk Love: ~6/10

I started watching Boogie Nights, even though I thought a movie about the porn industry in the 70s didn't sound like my kind of movie. I did this because I watched P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood a while back and really liked it, so I decided I would try some of his other works. However, I couldn't get the subtitles to appear in sync with the audio and I can't understand what characters are saying in movies without subtitles, so I quit watching it. I watched about half of it and didn't get hooked anyway.

So then, I watched Punch Drunk Love instead. It was nice seeing Adam Sandler try to star in a movie that wasn't complete trash, but when I finished watching it: I thought to myself "what the hell did I just watch"? I was thinking that Anderson was going to go in a farcical direction similar to Burn After Reading or to Fargo the TV show*, but I was a little disappointed because the resolution to the conflict between Sandler's character and Hoffman's character was, in my opinion, anticlimactic. The events didn't spiral out of control in the humorously entertaining fashion that they do in the two titles I just mentioned. I may have just been lucky enough to have picked the one film from P.T. Anderson's filmography that I like when I watched There Will Be Blood.

*Fargo the film may technically qualify as a farce, but I actually didn't find the events to be that unrealistic. I feel like something similar to the events of Fargo could happen in reality. Fargo the show, however, I find to be more farcical than the movie, which I like. There is no shred of believability in the show. Nor do the screenwriters attempt to make it believable. The events are outrageous, but serve wonderfully as absorbing drama and comedy simultaneously.

I think I would have to say that my favorite filmmaking style is the Coen brothers' trademark farcical black comedy. I'm not a huge consumer of more conventional comedy, but I really liked Burn After Reading and Fargo.

TL;DR: My impressions after watching Punch Drunk Love: "What the hell did I just watch"?

Sorry about the novel folks.

 

[Zojokkeli]

I started watching Boogie Nights, even though I thought a movie about the porn industry in the 70s didn't sound like my kind of movie. I did this because I watched P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood a while back and really liked it, so I decided I would try some of his other works. However, I couldn't get the subtitles to appear in sync with the audio and I can't understand what characters are saying in movies without subtitles, so I quit watching it. I watched about half of it and didn't get hooked anyway.

I may have just been lucky enough to have picked the one film from P.T. Anderson's filmography that I like when I watched There Will Be Blood.

I've really liked most of Anderson's movies. There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights are IMO his best work, while I didn't care too much for Punch-Drunk Love.

 

[Double-A]

I loved Daniel Day-Lewis' performance. As well as Paul Dano's. I really like Paul Dano as an actor. Unfortunately haven't seen too much of Day-Lewis outside of There Will Be Blood.

 

[Hutnicks]

I loved Daniel Day-Lewis' performance. As well as Paul Dano's. I really like Paul Dano as an actor. Unfortunately haven't seen too much of Day-Lewis outside of There Will Be Blood.

DDL just recently announced his retirement from acting so It may be a good time to catch up on his work. I always found him to be an actors actor in the classical British theatre sense.

Punch Drunk Love: ~6/10


I started watching Boogie Nights, even though I thought a movie about the porn industry in the 70s didn't sound like my kind of movie. I did this because I watched P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood a while back and really liked it, so I decided I would try some of his other works. However, I couldn't get the subtitles to appear in sync with the audio and I can't understand what characters are saying in movies without subtitles, so I quit watching it. I watched about half of it and didn't get hooked anyway.

So then, I watched Punch Drunk Love instead. It was nice seeing Adam Sandler try to star in a movie that wasn't complete trash, but when I finished watching it: I thought to myself "what the hell did I just watch"? I was thinking that Anderson was going to go in a farcical direction similar to Burn After Reading or to Fargo the TV show*, but I was a little disappointed because the resolution to the conflict between Sandler's character and Hoffman's character was, in my opinion, anticlimactic. The events didn't spiral out of control in the humorously entertaining fashion that they do in the two titles I just mentioned. I may have just been lucky enough to have picked the one film from P.T. Anderson's filmography that I like when I watched There Will Be Blood.

*Fargo the film may technically qualify as a farce, but I actually didn't find the events to be that unrealistic. I feel like something similar to the events of Fargo could happen in reality. Fargo the show, however, I find to be more farcical than the movie, which I like. There is no shred of believability in the show. Nor do the screenwriters attempt to make it believable. The events are outrageous, but serve wonderfully as absorbing drama and comedy simultaneously.

I think I would have to say that my favorite filmmaking style is the Coen brothers' trademark farcical black comedy. I'm not a huge consumer of more conventional comedy, but I really liked Burn After Reading and Fargo.

TL;DR: My impressions after watching Punch Drunk Love: "What the hell did I just watch"?

Sorry about the novel folks.

It's actually good to see some lengthy posts on here with some dimension to them. Boogie Nights really does not seem to be a film that would suffer from not being able to follow the dialogue. It is based loosely on the John Holmes story so the element of reality is in fact there.

Fargo as well is based on a true story and I was surprised at how the film followed the actual events quite faithfully. The characterizations of course are pure Cohen Brothers but the events were pulled from the pages of the papers in the midwest where I believe they actually come from..

I avoided Punch Drunk Love just for the Sandler factor and you leave me feeling I have missed nothing. I generally put him in the Will Farrell category of avoid like the plague when the name appears anywhere in a film credit.

 

[Double-A]

DDL just recently announced his retirement from acting

I heard that, yeah. Just judging by his performance in There Will Be Blood, cinema is suffering a blow with this news.

Boogie Nights really does not seem to be a film that would suffer from not being able to follow the dialogue.

I cannot believe that. I believe strongly that, if you cannot follow what is being said in a movie, then there is no point in even watching it, because you are missing the majority of the movie.

I generally put him in the Will Farrell category of avoid like the plague when the name appears anywhere in a film credit.

And Sandler actually has a more poorly reviewed filmography than Farrell . . .

I don't understand why anyone would star in movies that they know are going to be complete trash. It is one thing to have an occasional film in your career that doesn't turn out as well as it did in your head (every actor has black spots on their resume), but it is quite another for basically your entire career to be filled with such mind numbingly stupid titles as Little Nicky and Billy Madison, which aren't even funny; they're just stupid. Even Johnny Depp, who used to star in good movies at the start of his career, isn't in anything good anymore. I guess he just takes what jobs he can though because he is basically living from one giant paycheck to another because he has a severe spending problem?

Liam Neeson is another perfect example of someone who doesn't even try to star in anything decent. You'd think that after Schindler's List, renowned directors would be offering him roles in their dramas, but instead Neeson, these days, is mostly known as the guy who will play the gruff gunman protagonist in action movies. Come on Liam, you know you can do better.

If I was an actor, I like to think that I would be the Day-Lewis type who would only star in films that I think are going to be great. I just have a great love of cinema and it angers me to see actors who don't contribute to the advancement of it.

 

[Hutnicks]

I heard that, yeah. Just judging by his performance in There Will Be Blood, cinema is suffering a blow with this news.

I cannot believe that. I believe strongly that, if you cannot follow what is being said in a movie, then there is no point in even watching it, because you are missing the majority of the movie.

And Sandler actually has a more poorly reviewed filmography than Farrell . . .

I don't understand why anyone would star in movies that they know are going to be complete trash. It is one thing to have an occasional film in your career that doesn't turn out as well as it did in your head (every actor has black spots on their resume, but it is quite another for basically your entire career to be filled with such mind numbingly stupid titles like Little Nicky and Billy Madison, which aren't even funny; they're just stupid.

Speilberg the confectioner himself once stated that if he wants to see how well a film is directed he turns the sound off. You should be able to understand the film without the dialogue as it is a visual medium. That said good dialogue is an incredible bonus in a film.

Odd that. Considering that I believe Farrell still holds the record for the lowest return on investment of any actor in film.

I think a lot of actors and particularly the American Ilk will do any film just for the sake of getting their face on screen for fear of them disappearing from the public eye if they do not crank out a film every year.

 

[Double-A]

Speilberg the confectioner himself once stated that if he wants to see how well a film is directed he turns the sound off.

Spielberg is a great director. I do not presume to argue with him on his quality checking routine, because his movies are so good. However, I could not watch a film that way.

 

[tdockweiler]

Joy - 9/10

I've disliked nearly every movie the director of this has made, but i'm surprised I liked this so much.
Jennifer Lawrence was perfect in her role here. Hard to believe it's the same person who played Katniss Everdeen.

PS the first 15-20 minutes are annoying and not that good, but sort of necessary.

I also got this in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart and it was worth every penny!

POV: Last Men in Aleppo - 9/10

Not really a movie, but a PBS documentary about the rescue works in Aleppo that's probably 1 1/2 hours long.
Really a must see, but a big mistake to watch it just before going to bed.
After watching this I couldn't sleep for 4 hours straight! What happens in the movie just kept me thinking and I couldn't get it's images out of my brain.
I never felt this sad after a movie in a few years. Maybe not since the south korean film "Poetry".

 

[Hutnicks]

The Circle (2017) 3/10

A completely juvenile attempt at a film that tries to mix Antitrust with 1984 and gets it all wrong. Completely wasted here are the likes of Bill Paxton, Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan. Emma Watson can be excused as she has done nothing worth watching since Harry Potter so this is right on track for her.

A Facebook type company gets up to innocent enough shenanigans while young Emma gets seduced by the campus lifestyle offered here. The plotting is so bad it actually hurt to watch some scenes where the HR folk smilingly violate just about every employee right in the book to entice Emma to buy in to their whole sharing is caring plan. There is no build up of sinister creepiness just really happy people all around that manage to make you not give a whit whether they live or die. What could have been the big subplot gets ignored for the entire film until the very predictable end comes around. Too little too late as you will have turned it off and applied for a credit to the ppv folk long before you get there.

Avoid this one at all costs as it will significantly injure your brain.

 

[WraithApe]

I don't understand why anyone would star in movies that they know are going to be complete trash. It is one thing to have an occasional film in your career that doesn't turn out as well as it did in your head (every actor has black spots on their resume), but it is quite another for basically your entire career to be filled with such mind numbingly stupid titles as Little Nicky and Billy Madison, which aren't even funny; they're just stupid. Even Johnny Depp, who used to star in good movies at the start of his career, isn't in anything good anymore.

I don't think it's so hard to understand; it's money for old rope and sadly, most actors are more dedicated to the $ than the art. They probably think it won't damage their reputation to phone in a performance for a paycheck occasionally, but do it enough, and it surely will. DDL is one of the few exceptions, PSH was another. Like you say, Johnny Depp started out making good choices and garnering a reputation for being someone who cared more about his craft than the paycheck. Then he did Pirates and that seemed to open the door to accepting any old tat if the fee was big enough. It's always kind of amusing seeing actors slumming it though - you can almost see them rolling their eyes at the lines coming out of their mouths; it was like that watching Sam Jackson and John Cusack cringe their way through the atrocity that was Cell last year. How these kind of films get green lit in the first place is the real mystery - who's backing them, and why? I'm sure Cell tanked at the box office and anyone could've seen it coming.

 

[WraithApe]

The Circle (2017) 3/10

A completely juvenile attempt at a film that tries to mix Antitrust with 1984 and gets it all wrong. Completely wasted here are the likes of Bill Paxton, Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan. Emma Watson can be excused as she has done nothing worth watching since Harry Potter so this is right on track for her.

A Facebook type company gets up to innocent enough shenanigans while young Emma gets seduced by the campus lifestyle offered here. The plotting is so bad it actually hurt to watch some scenes where the HR folk smilingly violate just about every employee right in the book to entice Emma to buy in to their whole sharing is caring plan. There is no build up of sinister creepiness just really happy people all around that manage to make you not give a whit whether they live or die. What could have been the big subplot gets ignored for the entire film until the very predictable end comes around. Too little too late as you will have turned it off and applied for a credit to the ppv folk long before you get there.

Avoid this one at all costs as it will significantly injure your brain.

Harry Potter was worth watching?