Possibly one of the funniest movies i've seen in awhile and it's not really a comedy.
Loved every minute of this and it's too bad it did terrible at the box office.
Woody Harrelson somehow is one of my recent favorite actors.
I think I started to actually like him in movies when I first saw "Zombieland".
Your review makes me keener to see this one. I was umming and ahhing about whether to see it at London Film Festival but passed in the end as I thought it might be a bit of an earnest 'issues' film. Still not sure it's gonna be my kinda thing, but definitely more intrigued now.
Possibly one of the funniest movies i've seen in awhile and it's not really a comedy.
Loved every minute of this and it's too bad it did terrible at the box office.
Woody Harrelson somehow is one of my recent favorite actors.
I think I started to actually like him in movies when I first saw "Zombieland".
I decided to check this film out since it piqued my interest. Cinematography is different from the typical, as it's shot to provide feel of realness or reality camera type of situation in 24p. Acting is top notch.
To be honest, I was waiting for something significant to happen throughout half the movie, and realize that film was intentionally made the way it is, which isn't my flavor. I saw a bunch of random stuff happening throughout which didn't jive with me too well as all the scenarios illustrates is there to just paint a picture. Just different scenarios of kids doing kid things in a trashy type of environment? The parent-hood twist, anything else? I waited and waited for something to happen(or wondered what the purpose of the different parts were about or mounting into), and it did at the end, and I was like, that's it? That's what this is about?
Just another movie unless I'm missing something to be pointed out or makes it a genius of a film I failed to see. Not a movie I go for entertainment or something that movies me emotionally. So, what is this providing then? Seems a bit of a lifeless film to me, but this movie maybe much more appreciated by those that understands it due their personal experiences? Does it build a connection to particular people with past experience that identifies with what is portrayed in the film?
Perhaps I'm being a bit critical than it deserves. I will say though that I did appreciate the human portrayal, and rawness of what is led for us to be followed, but I was expecting substance. Also, I do agree with what the director's intentions were. To show an area of reality that is probably won't be shown(rarely if shown) in the media of people's lives, which seems quite brave and appreciative. Sure, I'm all up for seeing things of the world that film industry are ignoring, and also what is real. That intention could be getting some plus points, but my score is just based on how much I liked the film and gotten out of it. I think the director's formula can be better done, but I like the idea of movies about people we may not understand or experience, only see in a shell.
I think in terms of art, films like these builds a rich variety of what we can experience through film. I think it's a role of art to expose such realities, human lives, etc..
I sometimes watch documentaries, and stuff like this get filled in documentaries I've seen. I think there is a divide between what film and documentaries are used for, and this film is more of hybrid.
One film I can recall in the same lines, but hit me harder was Kids. That was a memorable film, and film making.
I decided to check this film out since it piqued my interest. Cinematography is different from the typical, as it's shot to provide feel of realness or reality camera type of situation in 24p. Acting is top notch.
To be honest, I was waiting for something significant to happen throughout half the movie, and realize that film was intentionally made the way it is, which isn't my flavor. I saw a bunch of random stuff happening throughout which didn't jive with me too well as all the scenarios illustrates is there to just paint a picture. Just different scenarios of kids doing kid things in a trashy type of environment? The parent-hood twist, anything else? I waited and waited for something to happen(or wondered what the purpose of the different parts were about or mounting into), and it did at the end, and I was like, that's it? That's what this is about?
Just another movie unless I'm missing something to be pointed out or makes it a genius of a film I failed to see. Not a movie I go for entertainment or something that movies me emotionally. So, what is this providing then? Seems a bit of a lifeless film to me, but this movie maybe much more appreciated by those that understands it due their personal experiences? Does it build a connection to particular people with past experience that identifies with what is portrayed in the film?
Perhaps I'm being a bit critical than it deserves. I will say though that I did appreciate the human portrayal, and rawness of what is led for us to be followed, but I was expecting substance. Also, I do agree with what the director's intentions were. To show an area of reality that is probably won't be shown(rarely if shown) in the media of people's lives, which seems quite brave and appreciative. Sure, I'm all up for seeing things of the world that film industry are ignoring, and also what is real. That intention could be getting some plus points, but my score is just based on how much I liked the film and gotten out of it. I think the director's formula can be better done, but I like the idea of movies about people we may not understand or experience, only see in a shell.
I think in terms of art, films like these builds a rich variety of what we can experience through film. I think it's a role of art to expose such realities, human lives, etc..
I sometimes watch documentaries, and stuff like this get filled in documentaries I've seen. I think there is a divide between what film and documentaries are used for, and this film is more of hybrid.
One film I can recall in the same lines, but hit me harder was Kids. That was a memorable film, and film making.
I was gonna say, sounds like Kids. Also sounds a bit like Show Me Love (to use the polite title!) and 15. Kids hit me hard too at the time, when I was a similar age to the film's protagonists, maybe a couple of years older. I dunno how it would stand up now though, I'd probably have a very different perspective on it. It was a bit like revisiting The Wasp Factory (the book). When I first read it, I really identified with Frank, but now, not so much - still a great read though. Maybe I'd still rate Kids, just from a different angle. I've seen a bit of buzz about The Florida Project, but your review doesn't make me want to rush out and see it.
I was gonna say, sounds like Kids. Also sounds a bit like Show Me Love (to use the polite title!) and 15. Kids hit me hard too at the time, when I was a similar age to the film's protagonists, maybe a couple of years older. I dunno how it would stand up now though, I'd probably have a very different perspective on it. It was a bit like revisiting The Wasp Factory (the book). When I first read it, I really identified with Frank, but now, not so much - still a great read though. Maybe I'd still rate Kids, just from a different angle. I've seen a bit of buzz about The Florida Project, but your review doesn't make me want to rush out and see it.
It's one of those films that critics like, but the audiance rank it lower. This happens at times, critics praises it, but the audience in general does not find it to be the level of hype that the critics are expressing. You see it in the percentage rated by audience being quite a bit lower than the critics. This is usually a good indicator.
The film didn't really drive enough of a emotional level or call it enough rawness to gain much out of the methodology. There should have been many things that could have been shown if trying to make a statement(although it seemed like there really wasn't?), but what was shown was what was shown, and didn't effect me to the level of films that do. This is what i mean by substance. I can't identify with film I think.
Great choice in casting. They scouted the right actors/actresses. Bria Vinaite seems like the same person in real life? LOL. I guess he knew what personalities he wanted for the roles and knew how to pick them out well. I think these kind of films the casting is probably based on real life personalities so that the actors/actresses can express the role in raw form. I think the movie really brings up Willem Dafoe, and his talent really show, but also he plays a likeable character so that is probably the big draw. I recall Dafoe from Platoon(fitting for his character), which was a fantastic film.
Earlier on, I reviewed a Korean film titled in English translation to be called Breathless, or literally translated to be shitfly or Ddongpari in Korean. That film is in the same lines of cinematography, but it had substance. Which I highly recommend.
An example of film that grabs the audience in terms of emotion would be Grave of the Fireflies. What a emotional ride that one was.
It's one of those films that critics like, but the audiance rank it lower. This happens at times, critics praises it, but the audience in general does not find it to be the level of hype that the critics are expressing. You see it in the percentage rated by audience being quite a bit lower than the critics. This is usually a good indicator.
Wellll.... it's a good indicator of what plays better at the box office; I'm not sure what else. If we're talking Rotten Tomatoes, I'm probably more often on the side of the critics than the audience tbh. Generalizing big time here, but the films that get a bigger audience vote than critics tend to be easily digestible blockbuster fare while the critics vote tends to favour art house, films that are more experimental and maybe require a bit more work from the viewer to get the most out of it.
Agree with you on Grave of the Fireflies - powerful stuff; maybe the only truly adult Ghibli.
I rate this one up there with Doomsday Gun for most overlooked biopic. While it does follow Sorkin's formulae that does not detract from a great performance from Chastain in particular and the rest of the cast holds their own as well. While some stuff has been fictionalized and added in it is a true story of how a high achiver bred for success can wander off the rails by a simple chance meeting and alteration of circumstances.Her devotion to core beliefs carry her through and she endures some of the most incredible tests of character. Unwavering is the only word that even comes close to describing this woman.
If some smart cookie had hired her to run Clintons campaign. The current insane clown president would have gotten exactly one vote.
One of two films used by Jess Franco to cash in on the genre popularity in 1980. Sabrina Saini plays a girl left in the jungle when her family was attacked ten years earlier.
This ends up being the worst movie ever made for the sub-genre.
Even Franco himself during interviews goes on to express it’s the worst Cannibal movie ever! He says he strictly made the film only for profit.
Shot seemingly in a local park and with natives which are mostly European with bright colored make-up. The effects look to have an overall cost of $5. The only positive can be found with the music.......and strangely the studio music is in perfect synchronization with the onscreen tribal drum playing?
Franco is in the books as the most prolific filmmaker in history. With over 200 films produced, you can guess many of those films were shot in a single afternoon, like this one.
They are trying toget the user base from the Saw series with this and trying to get to the younger audience. It´s just a train of jump scare scenes following eachother. Think they can succeed quite well with IT. Pun intended.
5/10 I would give it 1/10 but the jump scares while perhaps not that scary because it´s a steady train of expected scenes are entertaining.
They are trying toget the user base from the Saw series with this and trying to get to the younger audience. It´s just a train of jump scare scenes following eachother. Think they can succeed quite well with IT. Pun intended.
5/10 I would give it 1/10 but the jump scares while perhaps not that scary because it´s a steady train of expected scenes are entertaining.
Yup. Very disappointing. I thought they might try to take the source material in a weirder, more interesting direction but it just ends up being a bog standard mainstream horror. As clowns go, Art was much scarier than Pennywise too.
Cubby Broccoli, Terence Young and co hit it out of the park from the get go, laying down a blueprint that established many key elements of the franchise. Effortlessly stylish, tightly plotted and from the first reveal at the card table, Connery inhabits Bond like a well-tailored suit.
Filmmakers are always on the prowl to extract emotion, as it could just be the single greatest reason to watch film. Here we have a perfectly cast set of actors wrangling tears.
The movie itself is not only a true story, but a different style of story.
Dobu, Ditch, is a 1954 movie that takes place in post-war Japan where the country is in turmoil. A workers revolution has risen, people strike for higher wages and strike-busters are sent in.
It centers on a small community of people so poor they live in shacks between a river and railroad tracks, and when a freight train goes by they all run out with buckets to pick up any coal that might fall off. It's a small band of misfits and those who did have work are on strike and can't work.
A couple of our group are avid gamblers and one morning one of them finds Tsuru, a girl in her 20's laying on the ground, so weak from hunger she can barely get the word out. He starts to walk off, but stops to throw a small loaf of bread that hits her in the head. She devours it like it's the first food she's ever eaten, and it soon becomes apparent she's sweet on him.
But she's obviously mentally ill, hasn't bathed in 10 days and has some of the most comical facial expressions you'll see. She gradually worms here way into the community and makes herself a useful member of that society, who everyone takes advantage of. It isn't explicitly stated, but she speaks of having been in Manchuria during the war, and "Pleasure Girls" were routinely sent to service soldiers with a 10/1 ratio. But that's another movie.
She suffers from shell shock and is insane in a sad but comical way, but has a heart of gold. They manipulate her into pimping herself out to pay for one of them to "go to school" when they actually use the money to gamble. she's most inappropriate and loud, and her manner of seduction is hilarious.
10/10 and a Kleenex 2-boxer. It's funny in its own sad way but a very tragic story that does not end well for Tsuru.
This reminds me of someone I knew.
Nobuko Otowa also stars in Epitome, which I also have, about a girl sold into a Geisha House. That and the indigent are common themes among period pieces of that era.
Often Hilarious blaxploitation movie whose message is about as subtle as the solarized image of Hitler in the title credits, but that doesn't matter a bit when it's this much fun. Yeah, power corrupts, but the main thing I took away from this film is if your car is forced off the road, flips 20 times down the hillside and you're lying in a bloody mess of broken glass and crumpled steel, surrounded by armed militia taking pot shots at you, the one thing you absolutely must do is make sure you're wearing your shades. If you gotta go, check out with style.
Blow Out scores mainly on style points, with its neon-drenched sets, vertiginous aeriel shots and balletic camera work. De Palma channels The Conversation (with less subtlety and intrigue) via Hitchcockian thriller. It also has something to say about the cynicism of the movie making process - exploiting real life tragedy for cheap thrills, spliced together in the edit.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
