Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
6

I like how they purposely left out a lot of subtitles. It made the story feel unique and more immersive to the viewer. Watching it I had to be alert on the subtleties of prison communication lmao. I also enjoyed how it doesn't overly focus too much on the whole "Thai boxing fighter" aspects, but it appears to be marketed that way (probably to be more appealing). I don't care for fake onscreen fighting anyway, as I've never watched simulated pro boxing that's any good, ever. Check out the trailer at my blog here https://foundaz.com/2018/06/06/a-prayer-before-dawn-2018/ if anyone has got the time, along with my review and some other information.

6
comment
26

I've just seen it for the first time, and I'm sure blown away, but still collecting my thought. Was wondering what r/flicks has to say. This was my first Roeg movie and I'd certainly love to get more into his films (namely Performance and The Man Who Fell To Earth).

26
18 comments
5
Moderator of r/flicks

This /r/Flicks General Discussion thread is for any kind of general discussion such as questions and posts that don't deserve their own post, off topic discussion, lighter movie-related comments, jokes and humour, etc. Have fun and remember rule 1.

5
comment
22

Lost In Translation is my favorite film of the 2000s and one of my favorite things ever made. I just really wanted to share this love letter I made for it.

https://youtu.be/zPrpoNlw0iU

Some have suggested that I better edit the images in my videos, so they are understandable and more cinematic. I've taken your constructive criticisms to heart and I think you can tell I've taken more time putting this video essay/ love letter together.

What do YOU think of Lost In Translation? Do you love it like I do? What is your favorite Coppola film? I think her first three are her masterpieces, but I love all six of her movies.

Once again, here's my video love letter to Lost In Translation and Sofia Coppola: https://youtu.be/zPrpoNlw0iU

If you don't want to watch any video, the following is the script. You can just read the essay to see what I thought of it. I take an inward approach to my love letters. Looking inside is the only way to write lovingly to Coppola.

I'm happy to say that I'm going to study ALL of her films and post essays/ discussions on my channel for each one. She's a very important modern filmmaker - perhaps the MOST important.

Sofia Coppola is one of the most extraordinary filmmakers of all time because she beautifully expresses the inexpressible. She wants us to break out of the tedium of being and move into the realm of becoming. Coppola is very interested in showing us the captivity of mere being. She’s specifically interested in the captivity of being a woman. The Virgin Suicidesexpressed this deathly concept to its tragic extremes with the Lisbon sisters’ isolation pushing them towards annihilation. Lost In Translation - Sofia Coppola's follow-up film - takes a more inward look at the concept of captivity.

The film opens on one of the most perfect images captured in 2000s film. Yes, I am talking about Scarlett Johansson in pink panties. I’m speaking, of course, of Coppola insisting that we immediately objectify her before we even see her face. Coppola is framing her body deliberately so that we make her most fleshly part an object of want. As experienced by the Lisbon sisters in Coppola's debut The Virgin Suicides, there is captivity in the male gaze - and yet there is sincerity in its truest reverence. Sofia Coppola - a bombshell in her own right - frames beautiful women from the point-of-view of the self-conscious ex-model. There is certainly something to make holy out of Scarlett Johansson’s remarkable physical form. She’s become a sex symbol for a reason - very visceral, completely understandable reasons. It’s Coppola’s framing of the male gaze from a humanist perspective that elevates this cold open to a level of body poetics.

It’s not about the attractiveness of her form or the impossibles of her figure. For Coppola, it’s about all of her indescribables contrasted with the forcefulness of the limbo in her being. Charlotte is trapped in a perpetual hotel room. Charlotte is isolated. Coppola is saying that while you can absolutely objectify a woman or fantasize about her body and her lips - you can never capture her. You need to free her and Coppola knows you haven't got a clue as to how.

Giovanni Ribisi plays Charlotte’s husband. He’s one of my favorite actors in the world. Even though he’s is in just a few handful of scenes, he manages to captivate me in a stuttering, self-conscious performance of clinical disinterest. He’s never the focal point of Coppola’s framing, rather the director is far more concerned with where Charlotte’s husband’s attention is being directed. It is never being spoiled on his wife. Her husband is a photographer and the job of a photographer is to capture moments, places, and people. Once again, you cannot capture a woman like Scarlett Johansson. A woman like Scarlett Johansson begs to be set free. You cannot keep her in a perpetual hotel room of static being. He is forsaking everything about her that makes her extraordinary. His behavior hurts her deeply and it's painful to experience her intense loneliness. Coppola photographs them and gives Charlotte the attention she craves so much. Coppola's main concern is how hurt Charlotte is and how lost she has become. In fact, the only time Giovanni takes center frame - free of sunglasses, posturing, and disinterest - is in polaroid snapshots he has taken of the two of them. He takes up most of the photograph’s space. He’s far more intrigued by the act of capturing something empty than becoming something more sincere.

Coppola has said, “My films are not about being, but becoming.”

When two people are lost together, they have found each other. Lost In Translation is a masterful film about existential inertia. It’s about the incomprehensibility of living. It’s about feeling so pitifully lost and meaningless. It’s about making something. It’s about truly becoming.

Life is a Foucault arcade. We live in an absurdist postmodern universe where nothing truly has any inherent meaning. Everyone we know is mindlessly hammering away at the perpetual emptiness of post-millennium existence. We know everything and we know nothing. Life has been documented so many times by so many people before us - what originality could we possibly hope to possess in the face of all human writings? We have karaoke desires and we don’t know how to express ourselves without a hint of postmodern irony. We want something more than truth. We want something inexpressible. It doesn’t have to be anything mammoth, but it has to be worth something. We need to feel like we’re still growing. We need to feel as if we are still truly living, evolving, and becoming. We need to believe that there are mysteries out there that no epoch could demystify. We need attention and we crave to give attention to those who truly capture our own. We want to be found.

The film’s soundtrack is primarily comprised of shoegaze standards. Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine penned several new songs just for the film. Shoegaze is a kind of punk music where noise and static prevail, but if you listen closely you’ll hear the most sweet and sincere melodies nearly buried under all of that unintelligible sound. The music of Lost In Translation mimics Sofia Coppola’s most profound point. We live in a busy universe - one that is full of disinterest, neon lights, and metropolitan labyrinths - but somewhere inside of all of this modern era cacophony, there is a dynamic becoming. The meaning of life has simply gotten lost in the translation of being.

”You’re not hopeless.”

Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson broke my heart. They gave Sofia Coppola two of the most emotional and heartfelt performances of the 2000s. I need someone to tell me that I am not hopeless. I need someone to understand me. Just a little. Just for awhile.

Sofia Coppola’s films are all about stunning scenes of mystery. We will never know what it was that Bob whispered into Charlotte’s ear in the film’s final and most tender scene. It was a moment that was too pure, too meaningful, and too human to be fully captured. Coppola lets us dream and allows us to wonder. Coppola lets us interpret her mysteries for ourselves. We hear what we wish we heard. Sofia Coppola’s most stunning achievement was giving her audience hope. We fill in the dialogue and we make up our own words. We imagine that Bob tells her what we would all like to hear. We imagine that he tells her the one thing she truly needs to be told. Coppola romanced me into figuring out myself and what I think is missing from my own life. The words I believe Bob says to Charlotte are the same words I believe would change my life and make it mean something real for once. The words Coppola romanced into my head are the same words that could save me. I'm sure of it.

”Just Like Honey”

Sofia Coppola’s 2003 film is a masterwork of the American cinema. It is simply without equal - the best film of the 2000s. No contest. It perfectly illustrates the sad over-complexities of postmodern life. it brilliantly demonstrates the paradox of becoming in a universe that has already been.

I'm obsessed and I am in love with Sofia Coppola's work.

She is one of the true masters of world cinema. She is one the most brilliant filmmakers ever born. Lost In Translation is one of the most pure and well-meaning films ever made. It cures the dispossessed who look up to it searching for somewhere to be.

Every one of Coppola’s films are romances of intense mysteries. All of her films want to chase after you. She wants to pursue you.

Sofia Coppola wants to hold you in her arms and say, “You’re not hopeless.”

She wants you to know that she cares about you and that she understands you.

"Walking back to you

Is the hardest thing that

I can do

That I can do for you

For you..."

Lost In Translation is a life-saving film that tastes just like honey.

My love letter: https://youtu.be/zPrpoNlw0iU

Thanks.

22
27 comments
14

With a new version of war of the worlds coming out soon (next year, don't get too excited), I thought I should re-watch Spielbergs telling of the story and watch the two others that came out the same year. So here's just my thoughts on them.

Spielberg's version: I completely love this movie, without it I probably wouldn't want to be a director. I can easily say it's my favorite movie of all time. 10/10 (just my personal opinion)

The asylum's version: well this is what got them on the map, and it wasn't that bad. It was actually kind of entertaining and a good time. I definitely don't regret watching it and surprisingly will watch it again on a Friday night when I'm bored. (7/10)

The pendragon version: it's such a shame to see that obviously the people working on this cared about it, but it was just bad timing and many other obstacles that made this movie a shit show. The aliens and the machines have cool designs, would have been better if they did put a little but more time into the cgi or had a bigger budget. But this three hour long movie is just way too boring and follows the book too closely. (4/10)

So that's my little take on the three War of the Worlds that came out in 2005, if you've seen any of them please leave your own thoughts on them.

14
12 comments
3

Sorry to Bother You is the debut film of writer/director Boots Riley, a musician who is a veteran creative having put out hip-hop albums since the early 90’s. This, I think, largely explains my reaction to the film, as I appreciate the creativity and “out-there” aspects of the film, but feel that it lacks any sort of grasp on even the most basic principles of what makes for a compelling story or characters. For whatever it’s worth, this has very little to do with the politics of the film, which I largely agree with. The theme of people of color feeling they have to adjust themselves to fit into larger white society to the point where they risk losing their identity is what made me extremely excited for this film in the first place, and the film’s suggestion that lower-class workers need to have ownership and control over their workplace or else it becomes eerily similar to slavery was unexpected but still something I already wholeheartedly agree with it. I love everything about what the film was trying to go for, from concept to the themes and issues it tackles, but the execution is so far off base.

The most glaring issue to me is the lack of a compelling main character. The audience is never really given a reason to like him or to really care when he continues to succeed effortlessly to an unspecified end. This may largely be due to how fast the film’s plot starts and how little foundation it sets up beforehand. The first scene is of Cassius Green getting the job of a telemarketer. All we really learn about who he is before starting the job is that he needs money and validation, and he likes his girlfriend. That’s basically it. And it’s not even presented in an interesting way. There’s a scene where his landlord yells at him for being months behind on rent, which is easily just the most obvious ‘I need money’ set-up one could imagine. I could have forgiven a lazy set-up like this if the film were simply using it as a universally understood cliche opening so it could springboard into the more interesting stuff as quickly as possible, but from beginning to end Sorry to Bother You seems to choose the least interesting ways possible to progress the actual story. Another egregious example of this is right after Cassius learns to use his “white voice” to make sales over the phone, a montage starts to show his consistent success at making sales. But instead of indulging in what makes the concept of Sorry to Bother You interesting and treating the audience to unique situations the concept allows for, it instead cues maybe about 90 seconds of Cassius high fiving the manager in the same exact static shot.

In fact, the main concept of Cassius using his white voice is barely in the film at all. There is not one extended scene where he makes a sales pitch that has a beginning and an end. We don’t see any sort of progression or get to experience Cassius learning or solving anything. Off the bat, he just IS amazing at it. We don’t get to see why, we just watch him become more successful. This becomes an even larger issue when about 45 minutes into the film where Cassius has completed his extremely shallow goal and isn’t presented with any real obstacle or goal for quite some time. He is no longer poor and still has his girlfriend. What about Cassius is supposed to interest me here? Yes, eventually the film gets moving again when he finds out the company he works for is more sinister than he thought initially, but there is a large chunk of the film where it screeches to a halt because the main character is completely satisfied and isn’t driving the film whatsoever. In general, this film’s story has a huge issue with events happening one after another without any clear cause and effect.

On top of all of this is a ton of smaller issues. The humor rarely lands and is usually based on characters simply saying outrageous or “random” things instead of anything related to character or satire. There is one horrendous use of the awful trope of cellphone footage perfectly capturing something that could expose the antagonists that I audibly protested. The side plot, which awkwardly ends up becoming the main plot, is about Cassius’s coworkers and friends unionizing against the telemarketing company also has an issue of poorly showing the audience its progression, which leads to the climax of the film conveniently working out only because it seemingly has to. The lead protestor is creepy and weird but is never called out on it, Cassius’s girlfriend is extremely preachy and tied to a revolutionary faction for pretty much no reason. Absolutely nothing about the cinematography is interesting. The ‘satire’ of the state of media being a television show called “I Got the Shit Kicked Out of Me” is not only extremely shallow and not really explored, but it’s not even all that time with the peak of pain-porn television being back in the early 2000s with Jack-Ass and America’s Funniest Home Videos.

All this being said, I do see potential in Boots Riley as a director. Maybe the glowing reviews of his debut will make him think he’s got this screenwriting thing down, but I think if he put his next screenplay through a more rigorous rewriting process he could make a great film with a more refined story. Sorry to Bother You has a very bold creative voice and is filled to brim with interesting ideas. It always kept me guessing and I admire it for being truly original. However, the film lacks an interesting structure or character to hang all of these ideas on, and aside from some quirky moments doesn’t fully explore any one of these interesting ideas. The concepts and ideas deserved a much better script.

3/10

https://letterboxd.com/austinferreira/film/sorry-to-bother-you/

3
29 comments
0

Skyscraper

By Lionel Morales

By now, I think most people know what they’re getting into when they go see a Dwayne Johnson flick. I’m always torn between accepting the movie for what it is and questioning whether it’s even fair for me, or any viewer, to have to accept tempered expectations when going to see one of his movies. It’s a constant struggle between my inherent, biased, unconditional love I have for The Rock I grew up with and my desire to see him act in a movie that can truly be called “good”. Sadly, Skyscraper only served to fuel the eternal flame of this struggle.

While I was watching the movie, Kris Baron posed an interesting question within our group. Is The Rock as big as Arnold Schwarzenegger was in his prime? This really set me down a contemplative path, as I thought about the differences between these two titans of cinema. I don’t think the Rock will ever touch Arnold because sadly, there isn’t a single movie in his filmography that will ever go down as a classic. It’s easy to throw the blame on Dwayne Johnson for his poor movie choices. Surely a star who just set the record for the most money earned in a single year can make better choices, right? Well, I think the real problem is actually much bigger, and in a way, simpler. Action movies nowadays just plain suck. Is Arnold a better actor than Dwayne Johnson? Sure, I guess he is, albeit marginally. But the real problem is that action movies nowadays have foregone good dialogue, cohesive storytelling and character development in place of big set pieces, flashy CGI and emotional pandering. Every now and then someone strikes gold, but you’re going to have to sift through a lot of dirt to find them.

Therein lies the problem with Skyscraper. The story was formulaic and surprisingly uninspired considering the subject matter. The dialogue was terrible and was clearly designed to spoon feed the plot to the audience. There wasn’t a single unpredictable moment and the story chugged along exactly how you would expect. My biggest problem however was with the tonal inconsistency of this movie. Early fight scenes had excellent choreography and a gritty, realistic feel. Maybe The Rock is actually human in this movie? Oh wait, nope he just climbed a thousand foot crane in 5 minutes and held up a collapsing bridge with his bare hands. The frustration continued to build until I remembered that this is a Rock movie and perhaps I let my expectations get a little wild. Was the movie entertaining? Sure, the set design was impressive, the effects were well done, the tension was strong, the fight choreography was great, and Dwayne Johnson was his usual charming, smoldering, overall likable self. That’s where the positivity ends..

Here’s the funny, unexplainable part though…I still kind of liked the movie. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not good. It is very flawed, doesn’t really accomplish what I think it set out to do, and is objectively a bad movie. But goddamnit if there is isn’t something about The Rock that just transcends our sad, puny, mortal understanding of what makes a good movie. Should you go watch it? Like I said, I think you already know what you’re getting into.

  • Writing: 3/10
  • Direction: 5/10
  • Cinematography: 8/10
  • Acting: 4/10
  • Editing: 6/10
  • Sound: 9/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 7/10
  • Production Design: 8/10
  • Casting: 6/10
  • Effects: 9/10
  • Overall Score: 6.5/10

-

Hotel Transylvania 3

By August Keller

Much like the stereotypes attributed to its target demographic, Hotel Transylvania 3 is full of frustrating levels of unrealized potential. Audiences may be encouraged by the lavish narrative, moments of charming wit and a captivating climax; however, those same viewers will also have to endure a jumbled script overstuffed with stale story lines. Hotel Transylvania 3 attempts (& achieves) many interesting ideas yet is unfortunately bogged down by attempting too much else along the way.

Hotel Transylvania 3 almost comes off as insecure, as if it doesn’t trust any particular idea and compensates by cycling through as many as possible. The most enjoyable parts in Hotel Transylvania 3 are the times when it slows down, either for family moments, solid jokes, or a surprisingly epic confrontation. Alas, those moments are few and far between. In the end, sparse uses of artful framing, compelling sound and clever humor are not enough to completely redeem this muddled experience. Lush with engrossing and insipid efforts alike, Hotel Transylvania 3 is a monster mishmash.

  • Writing: 2/10
  • Direction: 4/10
  • Cinematography: 6/10
  • Acting: 4/10
  • Editing: 3/10
  • Sound: 8/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 7/10
  • Production Design: 6/10
  • Casting: 6/10
  • Effects: 7/10
  • Overall Score: 5.3/10

-

Three Identical Strangers

By August Keller

Starting out as a lighthearted tale of family reunion before diving into surprisingly deep themes of humanity, Three Identical Strangers is a ride abundant with pleasantly unexpected turns. Built around sincere interviews from all sides of the story, this innocuous documentary provides substantial thoughts on autonomy, morality, and identity. Though there are musty moments in the beginning of Three Identical Strangers, it is in service of setting up weighty conclusions; all of which are concisely blended together through a variety of mediums.

Despite all this, the main drawback of Three Identical Strangers is its general lack of style. While the film does go to daring places, everything is delivered in the most familiar ways (transparent montages, scoring and shot selections). This may be a pseudo-negative since all aspects of Three Identical Strangers are executed well, yet execution is easy when a movie sticks to the technical basics. Overall, Three Identical Strangers supplies fresh performances within a fresh narrative but plays things too safely to fully stand out. Much like its subjects, Three Identical Strangers is a unique experience dressed like something we’ve seen before.

  • Writing: 8/10
  • Direction: 7/10
  • Cinematography: 7/10
  • Acting: 9/10
  • Editing: 8/10
  • Sound: 6/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 6/10
  • Production Design: 6/10
  • Casting: 9/10
  • Effects: 5/10
  • Overall Score: 7.1/10

-

Disobedience

By August Keller

A tale of suppression, connection and liberation, Disobedience exudes respect in times of misunderstandings. Despite boiling with passion, Disobedience carries itself with stoic dignity through its measured scoring, direction and cinematography. The technical aspects of this film quietly maintain a traditional yet tense atmosphere as the cast is given room to express the depths of their skills. Rachel Weisz, Rachel McAdams, and Alessandro Nivola all show off their range and ability to build layers within their characters; filled with moments of true vulnerability, the performances in this cast are nothing short of valiant.

Due to the restrained nature of Disobedience, there will be some who find the film lacking. This feeling could extend to the motivations of characters or the film’s muted style. However, it is precisely this reservation which gives Disobedience its real impact. Among other themes, this film’s message is about moving through conflict with honor and Disobedience leads by example. This movie may not fit everyone’s tastes but it holds universal wisdom that all could benefit from. Disobedience is mature film-making done with dignity.

  • Writing: 8/10
  • Direction: 8/10
  • Cinematography: 8/10
  • Acting: 10/10
  • Editing: 7/10
  • Sound: 8/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
  • Production Design: 7/10
  • Casting: 10/10
  • Effects: 6/10
  • Overall Score: 8.0/10

-

Black Panther

By Tyler Lopez

Boy is it not hard to understand how Black Panther became a phenomenon and worked its way into the social consciousness of the United States. The movie touches on subjects that the US has struggled with maybe since the inception of the country, but not in a way that feels heavy-handed or divisive. Black Panther comes at you like a… well like a panther. It may not always be fast paced or aggressive, but when it is the movie strikes hard in a beautiful glory. The work behind the scenes to build this universe with traditional African designs, language, and heart is felt throughout as we’re treated to an amazing display of Afrofuturism.

Ryan Coogler’s latest cinematic success (after Fruitvale Station and Creed) is another in a long line of well made Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. Where the superhero genre can be justifiably called generic, this movie still represents plenty of what makes Coogler a gifted director. The emotional beats of this movie can at times hit highs that few MCU movies have been able to accomplish (that start of Guardians though, sheeeeesh!). There are some pacing issues and especially towards the end the CGI becomes distracting, but the amount of attention, love, and effort put into this movie is palpable. Not only is it a welcome (and might I say profitable -insert money emoji here-) addition to the MCU, but Black Panther helps to push the MCU to continue making fresh, new movies that also fit within the context of their ever-expanding universe.

  • Writing: 7/10
  • Direction: 9/10
  • Cinematography: 8/10
  • Acting: 7/10
  • Editing: 6/10
  • Sound: 8/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 10/10
  • Production Design: 10/10
  • Casting: 8/10
  • Effects: 7/10
  • Overall Score: 8.0/10

-

More 10-Category Reviews

0
5 comments
7

Of course I'm talking about films that aren't at theaters..

The thing is i watch movies exclusively on my computer, so I watch them late. And a friend is recommending some movies that scored 38% & 12% & 40% on rotten tomatoes..

Edit: I'm mentioning rt as an example for a simple watc/don't watch rating, but btw mostly rt, meta & imdb have close ratings for each movie

7
35 comments
13
Moderator of r/flicks

Television may be an inherently different medium than film, but the two have their many similarities as well - enough so that we're discussing television on this sub! Use this thread to discuss anything you like that has to do with television.

13
2 comments
11
Moderator of r/flicks

Much like /r/changemyview, this /r/Flicks CMV thread is for you to post viewpoints you hold about movies, directors, trends, genres, etc, and learn and discuss reasons for dissent. Your CMV topic does not have to be a long comment/question, but try and give some short insight to avoid rule 5. Have fun and remember rule 1.

11
21 comments
58

This is a 2017 commercial apparently directed by Malick that has all the features you'd find in one of his parodies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0O6g4LZaQI

58
14 comments
29
Moderator of r/flicks

And what did you think of them?

29
57 comments
48

Dude was a rising star when I was in college. Young, good looking, was a good actor and was fairly adept at pulling off his own stunts to boot. Had an impressive line-up of films that included Inception, Brick, Looper, 500 days of Summer, and Dark Knight Rises. I had a classmate who was so devoted to him he agreed to watch Brick for our movie night, eventhough he first told us when we met that indie films were an absolute no-no for him, he later loved the movie and not only because Joe was in it. So what happened to him? At this point he's basically become Orlando Bloom, except with the latter most people agree that Kingdom of Heaven's theatrical cut and a string of bombs was what tanked him. With Joe his decline in popularity seems to be so sudden, I mean I looked at his acting credits and apparently his last gig was a minor voice-acting roll in The Last Jedi, which should tell you all you need to know.

48
26 comments
11

There’s two available aspect ratios for the reconstructed version, 1.37:1 and 1.85:1. Welles originally shot it in 1.37:1 but this was trimmed down to 1.85:1 for theatrical release. Do you guys have a preference for a particular aspect ratio?

11
6 comments
31

I don't know how many of you are cineastes who hold the belief that there is no way in hell Titanic can ever be considered a good movie. Even if it is well-made, the dialogue sucks, the characters are cliched, and its basically a soap opera lacking any nuance. Indeed, that's what everyone said about the movie after it became the highest grossing movie of all time and won 11 Oscars. Even critics who initially said the movie was decent later felt the pressure to change their reviews and deride the movie as treacle and one of the most undeserving Best Picture winners in history. I remember when I was in elementary school if you said Titanic was one of your favorite movies, and especially if you were a guy, you were guaranteeing that you would spend the rest of your time until graduation eating lunch alone in the corner. And yet, there really does seem to be something about the movie that won't go away. Last year it was inducted into the US National Registry of Film. It's 3d re-release was the first signs that attitudes were changing. The movie's rotten tomatoes rating went from 83% to 88%. Over the years I remember that Titanic's imdb rating was as low as 7.3, now its at 7.8. The movie still continues to be referenced and the soundtrack is basically burned in everybody's heads, whether we like it or not. As for me re-watching it recently, I would yes on an objective basis Titanic is probably not a masterpiece in the traditional sense at least. The characters and plot do lack nuance, and a lot of dialogue is cringy. Yet not-withstanding the fact that James Cameron's directing is still impressive after 20 years, especially the sinking, there is something about that plot that works.

Some would say good film-making is secondary, but here it really is an asset for film about an event which is already quite mythical in of itself. A marvel of engineering and human craftsmanship on its maiden voyage being brought down by a force of nature, a ship whose passengers were equal parts aristocrats who spent what would be today 70,000 dollars for their room and lowly steel-workers and farmers who simply were looking for a better future, the isolation of the ocean a place we humans know less about than our own galaxy, endless speculation on could've been done to avoid the tragedy to begin with. Honestly it was a real historical event but the circumstance and tragedy surrounding it, on its own, crafted a universe that captures the interest of millions in a way not so different from other popular universes out there like Westeros, Middle-Earth, and a Galaxy Far Away born out of a single man's mind and his pen.

Back to the plot though, I think James Cameron might've had the last laugh when he derided his critics claiming his story was simple by saying essentially, that it was the point that the best movies don't necessarily have to beat into your head the shittiness of human existence or have really witty-fast paced dialogue. Sometimes familiarity really does work, its why we keep coming back to the hero's journey after all whether it be in Jon Snow or the new Star Wars Trilogy (For the record I'm in the camp that thinks the Last Jedi sucked and Rey is a boring character). Sometimes the best characters don't necessarily need to be the brooding types with their own uncomfortable perspectives on life, like Rust Cohle. They might just very well be your everyday plain hero that you've seen a million times before, but with the right casting choice and story decisions, you still can't help rooting for. All those elements combined, you get a movie that might not be note perfect like the Godfather or explore our place in the universe like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but one that undeniably touches the soul in its own way.

31
33 comments
0

like film discussion, analysis, collecting and everything inbetween? we've got channels for it. we are running a server on Discord where you can talk freely and openly on the topic of film with little to filter the discussion. want to talk about how Salo (the 120 Days of Sodom) is a boring Marxist allegory? come on in and discuss it. want to talk about how Cars 3 is the greatest cinematic masterpiece on this planet? we're here to discuss that with you.

if you've got nice blu-ray or dvd collection, a nice Criterion, Indicator, or Arrow collection, maybe a few Japanese posters of some of some of your favorite films come on in and show them off with to everyone in the server and brag a bit about it.

we'll be starting up server events in the very, very near future and are always open to suggestions on events we could do in the server to help push the discussions we have further. our active server event right now is film roulette where we put your name in a hat with everyone else involved, shake it around, and match you with someone you give a recommendation to, and match someone with you who gives you a recommendation, after you finish watching your film you can come into general chat or spoiler chat and discuss your thoughts or even analyze the film with others who have seen it.

if youd like to come on in and join the discussions we have, you are more than welcome!

discord server link: https://discord.gg/4W7uuS2

0
comment
17

Critics far and wide have bashed King Arthur (2004). It chose not to follow the classical legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table - instead going for a more historical route. But even then, it completely missed its mark and took sinful liberties, gutting any 'historical basis' it tried to include.

Even so, I love this movie so much and I think it's probably my favorite movie of all time. I love the actors (Clive Owen, Mads Mikkelsen, Keira Knightley), I love the characters (Tristan is my favorite, but Dag and Bors are close seconds), and I love the historical nods (Sarmatians, Romans, Celts, and Saxons).

And I really like the world that is set up in the movie. It's almost like a toned down Game of Thrones. Sarmatian Knights, forced to serve the Roman Empire, patrolling Britain and the length of Hadrian's Wall, fighting the Woads and facing the Saxons.

Stoic and dutiful Artorious, Woad warrior Guinevere, dual-wielding Lancelot, axe-wielding strongman Dagonet, scout falconeer marksman Chinese sword-wielding Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen!), fist-fighting Bors... I really love the cast and characters.

I could read a book series in this world, with these characters, spanning the length of their adventures. Or watch a TV show about the characters and this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_jllFIpZHU

17
16 comments
3

Sicario: Day of the Saoldado

By Andrew Baron-Vartian

As a technical piece, Sicario: Day of the Soldado works well. It will keep you on the edge of your seat filled with suspense and curiosity as to where this film is going.  The problem becomes “why are we going in this direction?” or even “what direction are we going?”. Unfortunately, this is the downfall of Soldado; it works on many levels but upon viewing the film you beckon to question on an idealogical level what is the movie trying to say. This ultimately falls on our writer Taylor Sheridan and director Stefano Sollima. It feels as if there was a disconnect between these two; as if Sheridan wanted to focus more on the characters/Sicario lore and Sollima was more interested in displaying the tense chaos and violence of this world.

On the other hand; Soldado has great cinematography, very well executed action set pieces and a suspenseful coherent storyline. Though the film lives and dies by it’s performances and I am pleased to say Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro are yet again sincerely fantastic. Del Toro’s nails every single beat in his expanded performance. Yet it’s newcomer Isabela Moner who sincerely surprised me with her portrayal as a kidnapped victim. Moner has tons of raw talent and a strong bright future ahead. Ultimately Sicario: Day of the Soldado is solid, it’s biggest problem is its unrealized potential. If you loved the first one and are curious to see where the story goes, it’s definitely worth checking out. Though I doubt we will see it convert new fans over to this now unexpected franchise.

  • Writing: 6/10
  • Direction: 6/10
  • Cinematography: 8/10
  • Acting: 10/10
  • Editing: 8/10
  • Sound: 8/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 7/10
  • Production Design: 7/10
  • Casting: 8/10
  • Effects: 9/10
  • Overall Score: 7.7/10

-

Sorry to Bother You

By August Keller

Trendsetting style, infinite wit and defining performances are just the beginning of what Sorry to Bother You has to offer. Because this film uses unusual shot selections, surreal writing choices and an abstract production design, it is restlessly unique. Meanwhile, the prefect cast (Lakeith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Jermaine Fowler, and Armie Hammer to name a few) all bring richness to their magnified characters. The keystone, however, is the direction of Boots Riley, who built a concrete classic with unmistakable vision.

The biggest complaints of Sorry to Bother You will be that it bites off more than it can chew or that it is an obvious character arc with chaotic tendencies. Still, even these supposed weaknesses seem intentionally done, helping to lace significant political statements with absurd comedy. It is rare for a film to flawlessly blend genuine waves of laughter aside sobering social themes yet Sorry to Bother You achieves so much, it almost seems effortless. Simply put, this movie is a juggernaut that oozes with creativity and craft. Satire at its best, Sorry to Bother You is a golden american comedy.

  • Writing: 8/10
  • Direction: 10/10
  • Cinematography: 9/10
  • Acting: 10/10
  • Editing: 9/10
  • Sound: 9/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 9/10
  • Production Design: 8/10
  • Casting: 10/10
  • Effects: 8/10
  • Overall Score: 9.0/10

-

Ideal Home

By August Keller

Ideal Home is a basic movie with extravagant execution. The narrative spends a lot of time in familiar motions but the emotional beats are well-implemented and the humor is vibrant. Entertaining editing and cinematic techniques are applied to create laughs and tears alike. However, the gem of Ideal Home is the acting by its choice cast (notably Steve Coogan and Paul Rudd) which noticeably elevates the material and create distinct characters. Despite being rather predictable, Ideal Home has a lot going for it.

The main drawback of Ideal Home is its general lack of originality, which prevents it from being particularly memorable. Yet, the film contains elite performances, sharp dialogue and fresh technical choices, making it a definitive success that should be enjoyable for most. Often, the chemistry between Coogan and Rudd alone is worth the while. Maybe it isn’t the most unique ride but Ideal Home is a good movie because it accomplishes all of its goals and brings family dynamics to life.

  • Writing: 6/10
  • Direction: 7/10
  • Cinematography: 8/10
  • Acting: 9/10
  • Editing: 8/10
  • Sound: 7/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
  • Production Design: 6/10
  • Casting: 9/10
  • Effects: 6/10
  • Overall Score: 7.4/10

-

The Seagull

By August Keller

Drama abounds as The Seagull navigates a journey of romantic entanglement. Set in late nineteenth century Russia, this film follows a cast full of characters experiencing unrequited love. Exquisitely produced and scored, The Seagull does all it can to surround viewers with its elegant world. Unfortunately, the many proficiencies of this movie are limited by a key weakness: emotional connection.

Ultimately, it is difficult to truly care about the characters in The Seagull because they aren’t fully likable, developed or interesting. Through monotone writing, acting and direction, their bonds to the audience are superficial. Perhaps we are supposed to find some characters unrelatable but, when the entire crux is the drama between them, it leaves me wondering why I should care about the film as a whole. The Seagull is undoubtedly a well made film that displays the perils of romance but also lacks the pop to be universally memorable.

  • Writing: 6/10
  • Direction: 6/10
  • Cinematography: 7/10
  • Acting: 7/10
  • Editing: 7/10
  • Sound: 7/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
  • Production Design: 9/10
  • Casting: 8/10
  • Effects: 7/10
  • Overall Score: 7.2/10

-

Blockers

By August Keller

Often superficial yet dabbling in unexpectedly heartfelt moments, Blockers spends time being both a raunchy comedy and a platform for social awareness. Yes, the technical execution of this movie is generally lacking but proper praise must be given for its attempts at some actual themes while blending everything to a satisfactory level. Essentially, Blockers gets some broad strokes right but regrettably whiffs on a multitude of details.

For example, many performances by the cast are endearing (especially from the younger members) but the headliners were rather inconsistent in hitting their notes. Meanwhile, the writing touches on important subjects but uses many shortcuts to get its audience there, leaving moments unearned. There are fun sound and cinematic choices (I always love a good dolly zoom) but Blockers goes through bland motions as well (upfront montages feel tacky). Overall, Blockers does enough well yet so much wrong that it feelings like the definition of a mixed bag. Surprisingly redeeming yet far from a must see, Blockers is a toss up.

  • Writing: 4/10
  • Direction: 5/10
  • Cinematography: 5/10
  • Acting: 4/10
  • Editing: 4/10
  • Sound: 6/10
  • Score/Soundtrack: 5/10
  • Production Design: 5/10
  • Casting: 6/10
  • Effects: 6/10
  • Overall Score: 5.0/10

-

More 10-Category Reviews

3
4 comments
31

I just finished watching it for the second time, and I want to vent about it.

SPOILERS

So after watching it the first time, I felt really depressed, since I felt I could relate to Craig as a character, being somewhat emasculated and being in love with someone who doesn’t love you back. The ending (He gets stuck inside the daughter of Lotte and Maxine) just hit me in the gut and I felt like I couldn’t enjoy the film. Watching it again gave me similar feelings, even though I tried not to relate to Craig and even though I knew how it would end. I enjoyed it more than before, but it still feels too depressing for it to be enjoyable. Does anyone else have this feeling?

31
37 comments
4
Moderator of r/flicks

This /r/Flicks General Discussion thread is for any kind of general discussion such as questions and posts that don't deserve their own post, off topic discussion, lighter movie-related comments, jokes and humour, etc. Have fun and remember rule 1.

4
9 comments
8

I’m sorry to say this guys, because I know that this is obviously a critically acclaimed film. Currently it’s No. 1 on the BFI’s Sight and Sound list, beating Citizen Kane. So when I watched it I found myself slightly underwhelmed until the third act started. Spoilers ahead so if you haven’t seen it I definitely recommend it. It’s an important film to see despite the fact that I didn’t think it was great.

SPOILERS

I really started getting into the film at the point where Scotty begins his obsession with the woman. This was definitely the strongest part of the film and was executed very well. The final scene, however I felt was absurd. It felt rushed and had little conclusion for all the characters. The nun comes out of nowhere and Kim Novak’s character throws herself off the church tower. This left little resolution for Scotty or the man who was behind the murder in the first place and even Kim Novak’s character. So I went back for a rewatch and still wasn’t engaged. Since I knew the plot twist it didn’t have the creepy, perverse undertone like it did the first time around till the part where Scotty becomes obsessed with the woman which is the films strongest part definitely.

Obviously if we’re speaking from the film making aspect- directing, cinematography wise it is an absolute masterpiece. The colours for example are beautiful and I really loved the opening credits sequence and how it set the tone for the rest of the film. I just wasn’t engaged in the story, didn’t like the first act or most of the second and felt the ending was rushed.

I don’t want to come off cynical or nit-picky, just wanted to discuss the film. It isn’t anywhere near a poor film I just don’t understand all the praise it gets. I don’t know if it’s due to the themes (which as I already stated are superb.) Thanks if you’ve read to the end. Please have a civil discussion about this film. Also this is my first Hitchcock and I plan to check his others out, don’t worry.

8
12 comments
18
Moderator of r/flicks

Television may be an inherently different medium than film, but the two have their many similarities as well - enough so that we're discussing television on this sub! Use this thread to discuss anything you like that has to do with television.

18
12 comments
21
Moderator of r/flicks

Much like /r/changemyview, this /r/Flicks CMV thread is for you to post viewpoints you hold about movies, directors, trends, genres, etc, and learn and discuss reasons for dissent. Your CMV topic does not have to be a long comment/question, but try and give some short insight to avoid rule 5. Have fun and remember rule 1.

21
70 comments
57

Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson are two directors that have demonstrated Oscar caliber work in several dramatic films. Tarantino has The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained (Oscar), Inglorious Basterds (Oscar), Death Proof, Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction (Oscar), and Reservoir Dogs. Paul Thomas Anderson has Phantom Thread (Oscar), Inherent Vice, The Master, There Will Be Blood (Oscar), Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, and Hard Eight.

Tarantino tends to favor long dialogue scenes, often about unrelated plot content, that serve to build character. This is complimented by a tendency to utilize sudden and intense violence. PTA favors long scenes that include little dialogue. These include the characters performing specific action and emphasizing cinematography.

We conducted a full analysis and conclusion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teFOMHfTrc

Who do you prefer? Do you agree with our points?

57
22 comments
Community Details

44.9k

Subscribers

52

Online

The Gap between /r/Movies and /r/TrueFilm

Create Post
r/flicks Rules
1.
Civility

Civility will be enforced harshly. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Discuss the issue, or hit "report" on a comment and let the mods deal with abusive users. No sexism, racism, insults, or other attacks.

2.
Undescriptive comment

Do not submit content that you yourself don't want to discuss. Comments that avoid answering the question or discussion topic are not allowed.

3.
Unexplained answer

Please make an effort to explain your answers. Do not leave comments of just a movie's title, an actor or character name, etc, or leave a short opinion without any explanation/reason for it.

4.
Just a joke, title, actor name, quote

Do not post comments of just movie titles, quotes, actor names, or jokes, or etc.

5.
Name a [blank] thread.

No 'name a [x]' threads, i.e. posts that simply ask people to list a movie, actor, genre, etc.

6.
Hyperbole and exaggeration

Gross uses of the word "underrated" and other hyperbolic terms ("the worst ever", etc) may resolve in a ban.

7.
Undescriptive title

Be thoroughly descriptive in your submission title. Do not leave out the name of the film or actor you want to talk about. Clickbait titles will be removed.

Other Film-Related Subs
r/movies

17,945,519 subscribers

r/TrueFilm

147,895 subscribers

r/MovieSuggestions

75,716 subscribers

r/criterion

22,779 subscribers

Moderators
u/LiteraryBoner
Michael Bay Did Nothing Wrong
u/EcoleBuissonniere
Pas celle-là, Jim
u/AdmanTheWoof
letterboxd: AdamKPeter
u/rycar88
https://letterboxd.com/rycar88/
u/false10
http://letterboxd.com/false10/
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.