well that's a lot to think about.
I liked it. I definitely liked Take Shelter more, but this was pretty different and also quite good. I need to sleep on it before I post my full thoughts though. Thanks for the recommendation
Is Hugo really sentimental? From the trailers I've watched it looks masterfully crafted but it also looks horribly sentimental.
I think I enjoyed the rawness of this one more and the lack of any existential, pseudo-theistic bent like there was in Take Shelter. I do plan on revisiting Take Shelter though as I thik I was just in a mood that day.
I think I'm going to take slayer's challenge on Friday and see it in 3D in the afternoon. :ninja:
KT
yeah it's "horribly" sentimental
I enjoyed that though; not the type of movie I usually watch
*groan* Thanks, now I know to expect that. I don't know about others but I don't like drippy sentimental films. Why is it all the critics go gaga over overly sentimental stuff?
Erm, aren't you the one that loved Grave of the Fireflies? Talk about overly sentimental, cloying claptrap. :whiste: :awe:
KT
I feel bad when anyone makes fun of Grave of the fireflies. :'(
I still like it but he's right though. It IS overly sentimental.
Seven Days (Les 7 jours du talion) - 7.5/10:
KT
Yeah, but I don't care. I liked the movie a lot.. also KT does not like animes. :awe: It is a different sort of a war movie.
That's been on my queue almost as long as I've been a netflix subscriber. It's nice seeing reviews of lesser known movies like that. Though it does confirm that it's nothing watch ASAP
Shotgun Stories - 8.5/10:
Sort of a gritty and modern montagues vs capulets; two sets of half brothers start a blood feud after their father dies. Michael Shannon stars, Jeff Nichols directs(and wrote).
By far the best component here is the storytelling. Nichols does a great job at making the viewer understand the lives of his characters, and he does it very quickly and early on. At first I was a little hesitant because I was finding it hard to relate to the situation, but it all opens up once the story gets going.
The movie is a little tough around the edges, I think it was nichols' first movie though, so it's impressive. I think if the dialogue was a bit more refined, same with the score, this could have been really great. But as is, it's still a great story and a solid movie.
Great characters and very good acting, good watch :thumbsup:
Hunger - 7/10:
The infamous, amazing, incredible, omg its so pretty, Steve McQueen debut. :| Fell flat for me. This movie was definitely hyped up too much. For a first time director, like shotgun stories, this is a very valiant effort, and it has some glimpses of greatness, but standing on it's own it has flaws.
It's about Bobby Sands' hunger strike in prison.
I didn't like the pacing and the story seemed too disjointed. There are some very powerful and amazing scenes, hard to watch at times, but the movie just felt off to me. Maybe I don't know enough about the real life events, I'm not sure; The movie surely doesn't explain much. Fassbender is good but there's not enough of him, and I think this is one of his weaker performances(physicality excluded).
Drive - 8/10.
Why not a 9 or a 10? There were a few movie goofs that really took me out of the movie. Most people will probably not notice, but I did and it's important to me.However, this has one of the BEST soundtracks I have heard. It also has a pretty decent story. A lot of people will not like this movie, but I understood it. It has elements of a modern western hero movie.Ryan Gosling hijacks the mustang, right? Gloves are on. Turn to another shot, immediately they're off. Now it's the chase scene with the Mustang and Chrysler. Dodging the cars, the cars change between shots. The car they just dodged (An old Yaris maybe?) turns into a Toyota Corolla S. Things like that can really bug me. Another thing: When in the Impalla, he is HAMMERING the hell out of that thing to get it going across the bridge. He never passes the cars that are in front of him. Every time the shot comes back, he is still the same 30ft away from an SUV and some other car. Again, I really like seeing the speed and not just assuming it. I understand this is beyond what most movies can do, but at least make me believe it's really happening with the visuals. When he drops the gear and makes it seem like he is really starting to go, the visuals do not match it. I was like, "Ok, it sounds like he is really revving. But he is not going anywhere..."
I did not notice any of those things; I was so wrapped up in the story and the characters, that all of those smaller things fell by the wayside. I would say that the minor editing and narrative details are not a problem of the film, they are going to happen, but not having a compelling enough story to distract you from those details certainly is. Fortunately for me it was not a problem.
KT
Yeah it depends on the details and the viewer. Whatever you do in your daily life, if you saw a movie that butchered it, you'd probably get taken out of the film.
With Drive, the primary thing that stood out to me were two scenes ..
The Mustang 5.0 GT vs. Chrysler 300C was incredibly ridiculous. That GT would have been gone so damned fast (particularly with a good driver like that) that the scene wouldn't have really even happened. They should have chosen a Charger SRT8 or something at least in the universe of believability.
The other was where he takes his old car and rams a car at a speed high enough to make it fly 50+ feet through the air, yet when he gets out of his car, it's unblemished, headlights still blazing. But I could buy that a tiny bit if this is some realm of magical realism or whatever, where the protagonist isn't entirely human or something. But that explanation doesn't jibe with that pile of crap 300 keeping up with a 412hp GT.
I really liked most of Drive though, and I love the director. His work on Valhalla Rising was supremely good. I think he excels with characters, but not technology or set pieces.