I highly respect and love you for it. This is a perfect
10 for me too. Awkafina is fine here, and great in The Bad Guys, but I don't like most of her roles. I'm ready for that sequel too.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
10 for me too. Awkafina is fine here, and great in The Bad Guys, but I don't like most of her roles. I'm ready for that sequel too.
Director of the Raid? Tom Hardy? Forest Whitaker and his weird old man voice even though he looks the same as he's looked for 30 years? That chick from that otherwise godawful fantasy YA show Shadow and Bone but it wasn't her fault it was awful? Timothy Elephant? < 2 hrs?
f*** yeah
A ★★★½ review of Gangs of New York (2002)
“What is your name?” “Amsterdam, sir.” “Amsterdam? I’m New York.” This film took a very long time to get made, to say the least, and it was far from a smooth time to do so. Martin Scorsese had interest in making a film inspired by a book called "The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the...
letterboxd.com
Freaks (1932), 6/10
This is one of the oldest movies I've ever watched, and a historically significant film in many respects. It's a relic from the dawn of cinema itself, and about a traveling circus full of people with all sorts of disabilities and abnormalities: microcephaly, dwarfism, conjoined twins and so on. The leader of the troupe starts to get seduced by one of the normal performers who just wants his money. For such a controversial movie pushing 100 years old and about such a touchy subject it's aged marvelously well. It shows an incredible level of sympathy and humanity for a group of people towards whom attitudes were nothing short of abysmal at the time. The film never draws overt focus on the abnormalities and presents all of them as peers with the non-afflicted members of the cast (as much as it can in its brief 62-minute runtime). There's some rather impressive filmmaking on display as well for its meager budget (only about 7 million when adjusted for inflation). It being such an old film there's obviously some constraints of the time, because film was still such an unestablished format: the cinematography is very still and plain and the acting can be rather hokey at times.
This is one of the oldest movies I've ever watched, and a historically significant film in many respects. It's a relic from the dawn of cinema itself, and about a traveling circus full of people with all sorts of disabilities and abnormalities: microcephaly, dwarfism, conjoined twins and so on. The leader of the troupe starts to get seduced by one of the normal performers who just wants his money. For such a controversial movie pushing 100 years old and about such a touchy subject it's aged marvelously well. It shows an incredible level of sympathy and humanity for a group of people towards whom attitudes were nothing short of abysmal at the time. The film never draws overt focus on the abnormalities and presents all of them as peers with the non-afflicted members of the cast (as much as it can in its brief 62-minute runtime). There's some rather impressive filmmaking on display as well for its meager budget (only about 7 million when adjusted for inflation). It being such an old film there's obviously some constraints of the time, because film was still such an unestablished format: the cinematography is very still and plain and the acting can be rather hokey at times.
Part of the hokey acting, and something that I really think lends itself to the film overall, is the fact that Tod Browning used actual circus performers for the roles, not professionally trained actors. It's a shame that the bad publicity led to the film being cut down heavily, and that edited version is the only one that's survived. It also pretty much killed Tod Browning's career.
A ★★★★ review of Overlord (2018)
“Three months ago, I was cutting grass on my front yard. The mailman shows up with a letter from the army. Now I'm here, and no idea where I'm going to end up.” This film was first conceived by J.J. Abrams in 2017, with Billy Ray writing the script. Paramount picked it up that same year, and had...
letterboxd.com
That I knew, I was more getting at the acting standards of back then still being very much based on theatre, hence some of it feeling rather overwrought at times.
Yep, watched it last night. Was fun.
The one little surprise was when you mentioned that the girl was good in it, I had assumed you meant the cop since she's in the trailer (that's the actress I referenced having been in Shadow and Bone or whatever that shit show was called).
But then the other girl, the girlfriend of the other crook, started whipping out moves with a hatchet and it was indeed a highlight. That whole "I'm not really a fighter but oh actually I am" thing, love it.
And yeah the rest is fine- not essential viewing but I had exactly 1 hour and 40 minutes to kill in between chores and dinner so it was perfect for that.
Very stupidly violent though.
Yep. Mia is the one I was referring towards.
Indeed. My older brother saw the movie first, then my parents, and finally me. My mom, my big brother, and I love this movie. My dad liked it, but he felt the violence is excessive. Not realizing what type movie this is. Apparently he was expecting a regular crime drama with some bits of action. Though knowing him, he wanted to see the movie for Forest Whitaker. Though he did get invested in the plot.