Even More Movies You've Watched This Week

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Into Darkness has made me very, very excited and hopeful for the new Star Wars films.[/quote]

Oh I hope they pull Star Wars out of it’s Phantom Menace/Attack Of The Clones gutter (I actually liked the ending of episode 3, so I’m not throwing that in there). I wonder who the villain will be for episode 7. I would have loved a Jacen Solo dynamic, but that’s probably rather unlikely. Not just given his already extensive storyline and death, but also just launching the whole family tree in there and hoping the audience rolls with it.

I will however, on the other end of the spectrum, be kind of pissed if Palpatine returns from the dead. As much as I loved him in the original series, I do not want them to rehash it and slap a shiny new sticker on there just to cut corners.[/quote]

I have such an odd relationship with the prequels, I loved them as a child because they were Star Wars but now find them utterly unwatchable.

The reasons why they sucked so much for me was cause they could never live up to the imagination of a child. Me and my bro used to talk late at night when we were kids, imagining what the fight between obi wan and anakin was like, then it was created so anakin was fucking space jesus. I have star wars encyclopaedias from the mid 90’s that state Darth Vader was a mysterious figure who rose through the imperial ranks, not space jesus.

BUTTHURT PREQUAL HATE ASIDE, it is gonna be interesting if they go down the thrawn/emperor reborn route but I honestly dont know how they would make it work? Same wtih the new Jurassic Park, i just dont know what else they can bring to the table.

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Into Darkness has made me very, very excited and hopeful for the new Star Wars films.[/quote]

Oh I hope they pull Star Wars out of it’s Phantom Menace/Attack Of The Clones gutter (I actually liked the ending of episode 3, so I’m not throwing that in there). I wonder who the villain will be for episode 7. I would have loved a Jacen Solo dynamic, but that’s probably rather unlikely. Not just given his already extensive storyline and death, but also just launching the whole family tree in there and hoping the audience rolls with it.

I will however, on the other end of the spectrum, be kind of pissed if Palpatine returns from the dead. As much as I loved him in the original series, I do not want them to rehash it and slap a shiny new sticker on there just to cut corners.[/quote]

I have such an odd relationship with the prequels, I loved them as a child because they were Star Wars but now find them utterly unwatchable.

The reasons why they sucked so much for me was cause they could never live up to the imagination of a child. Me and my bro used to talk late at night when we were kids, imagining what the fight between obi wan and anakin was like, then it was created so anakin was fucking space jesus. I have star wars encyclopaedias from the mid 90’s that state Darth Vader was a mysterious figure who rose through the imperial ranks, not space jesus.

BUTTHURT PREQUAL HATE ASIDE, it is gonna be interesting if they go down the thrawn/emperor reborn route but I honestly dont know how they would make it work? Same wtih the new Jurassic Park, i just dont know what else they can bring to the table.[/quote]

Oh I hated the first two, and not just because of the typical go-to of Jar Jar Binks being some ridiculous parody thrown in to make the whole thing a fucking Punch and Judy show with shiny swords.

The third episode was the only one of the newer series that even felt like a Star Wars film to me, that it actually carried on most of the elements that made the original series great. I loved the tension between Kenobi and Anakin in the final fight, the arena was beautifully rendered and I loved the way Lucas explored Anakin’s descent into chaos. In comparison to the other two, Episode III pulled it right out of the hole it was in, I actually think it was a worthy addition to the franchise, and at the very least the best they could have done given the setup of the other prequels.

Yeah, Admiral Thrawn would be a nice villain to have I think. It kind of runs the risk of being a bad re-interpretation of old villains into a newer form, but I will hold judgement on that, the (STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS SEMI-SPOILERS) re-introduction of a famous villain from Star Trek lore (SEMI-SPOILER OVER) and Hardy’s Bane from DN Rises lead me to believe that there is hope yet for introducing common villains again.

With the Safety Not Guaranteed guy directing Jurassic Park IV, I really don’t know what to expect. The films are so wildly different, even if Trevorrow did indeed do well with SNG, JP IV might still be a total flop like the other sequels. But who knows, maybe he could turn out to be a Steven Soderbergh kind of guy, and pull a rabbit out of every god damn hat he lays his eyes upon. (Shout out to Soderbergh, that guy is versatile as shit.)

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
Joe Cornish’s Attack The Block
[/quote]

Agree 100%. It’s one of those movies that I will keep coming back to, much like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz (one of my all-time favourites).

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

The third episode was the only one of the newer series that even felt like a Star Wars film to me, that it actually carried on most of the elements that made the original series great. I loved the tension between Kenobi and Anakin in the final fight, the arena was beautifully rendered and I loved the way Lucas explored Anakin’s descent into chaos. In comparison to the other two, Episode III pulled it right out of the hole it was in, I actually think it was a worthy addition to the franchise, and at the very least the best they could have done given the setup of the other prequels.

[/quote]

NO, the 3rd one was horrendous too. It was filled with the same horrendous lack of logic (why didn’t yoda/obi wan just release the video of palpatine admitting to murdering 1000’s of jedi cause he was an evil sith rather than attacking him in private?) and the same boring lazy cg filled direction from lucas (nearly every talking scene is shot sitting down!)

Btws, I heavy lol’d when Spock shouted KHAAAAAAAAAN in into darkness, did you? Was awesome geek service

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

The third episode was the only one of the newer series that even felt like a Star Wars film to me, that it actually carried on most of the elements that made the original series great. I loved the tension between Kenobi and Anakin in the final fight, the arena was beautifully rendered and I loved the way Lucas explored Anakin’s descent into chaos. In comparison to the other two, Episode III pulled it right out of the hole it was in, I actually think it was a worthy addition to the franchise, and at the very least the best they could have done given the setup of the other prequels.

[/quote]

NO, the 3rd one was horrendous too. It was filled with the same horrendous lack of logic (why didn’t yoda/obi wan just release the video of palpatine admitting to murdering 1000’s of jedi cause he was an evil sith rather than attacking him in private?) and the same boring lazy cg filled direction from lucas (nearly every talking scene is shot sitting down!)

Btws, I heavy lol’d when Spock shouted KHAAAAAAAAAN in into darkness, did you? Was awesome geek service[/quote]

Oh there are a ton of bumps for sure, and the dialogue was still horrendous in the third (what else can you really expect from George Lucas?). I kind of liked the visuals, I appreciate the kind of DIY effects of the originals and that the new ones can seem a little too Hollywood, but it made for some damn good environments. The acting was brilliant in the third compared to the first and second, there was no other moment in any of the other two that could even compare to the final 15-20 minutes of Revenge Of The Sith. I think it handled it’s ending beautifully, it’s largely for that reason that I enjoyed it so much. The character dynamic was very well laid out by Lucas, and the references, by god the references. Those clever little nods they had to the original series were charming.

It was certainly no New Hope or Empire Strikes Back (shout out to Empire Strikes Back for being the best Star Wars film ever), but I think Lucas jumped himself far enough out of that hole he was in to make that one come together well enough in the end.

You dirty no good spoiler you! Yeah it was great, I really like Zachary Quinto as Spock man, he’s done a damn good job.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
Joe Cornish’s Attack The Block

Scanning through films related to Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and their cornetto trilogy (the third of which I am eagerly awaiting the release of), I came across a film by the same producers named Attack The Block. Featuring a gang of British youths in Brixton that have to deal with a hostile alien invasion, along with the help of a nice young nurse they recently mugged and a posh University student stoner that’s as timorous as he is annoying.

I loved this film. Loved, loved, loved this film. All films that trace back to both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have some element of absurdity, and that absurdity is used wonderfully here. The film looks like just another amateur indie film coming out of the gates, but the subtle beauty is in it’s script. Cleverly satirising the hierarchy of class and the stereotypes that come along with them, Attack The Block is not just another silly movie about Aliens, but a brilliantly humorous and insightful perspective on the abolishment of social stratification when faced with a much more relevant and threatening enemy. The cast are all relatively unknown, but each do wonderfully in their respective roles, it was a joy to watch this film and not be left with a jaded, loathsome mentality over the silly paper gangster demographic. I would liken it’s metaphor of class unto that of District 9 and it’s similarities to the apartheid. But displayed here in a much more comedic, albeit just as well crafted manner.

The action is very fast-paced and there is not a single moment for the entirety of the film that I felt bored or distracted. Given the inventive and unique nature of the film’s premise, I feel Cornish handled the outcome brilliantly, especially for his debut, a film like this must not be a simple task to take head on.

I would recommend anyone with a significant understanding of London’s lower class youth and their terminology to see this film immediately, it is full of snippets of very witty and applaudable humour, with a very devoted cast, and I am sure that this will one day be regarded as a British cult classic. Trust bruv![/quote]
I caught this a few weeks back and enjoyed it also.

Kim Ji-Woon’s I Saw The Devil

“I Saw The Devil” is a South Korean tale of murder and revenge, but with some very unique creativity. Kim Ji-Woon is a director whose efforts I have been intrigued by for as long as I remember. Being the man who made “The Good, The Bad And The Weird” and the even more respect worthy “A Tale Of Two Sisters”, Kim is no stranger to great Asian cult films. (He also made “The Last Stand” with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but let’s just forget about that one for now).

People who are fans of Asian cinema will instantly recognise Choi Min-Sik who plays the protagonist Oh Dae-Su in Oldboy, and just as he were to show his promising talent in Oldboy, he does so again here, perhaps just as wonderfully. The film is relatively well cast and acted on all parts, but the dynamic between the protagonist Lee Byung-Hun and the antagonist Choi Min-Sik is simply unparalleled. Choi features as a sadistic sociopath who is unrelenting, uncaring, devoid of guilt, but also equally pathetic and disgusting. Lee on the other hand is a kind and loyal hero to our story, but as my favourite heroes normally are, he does not try to find the out of a moral high ground, but is willing to become just as much of a villain to do what he feels in his heart is right.

This story has no happy ending, there is no being the better man, no preservation of humanity, no doing things by the book, there is just an ever-increasing fall into chaos and ruin, culminating in the destruction and degradation of everything orbiting around our two lead players. This film does not play to our ethics, it does not make us cheerlead the protagonist, but it does go much, much deeper than that.

I praise the film for it’s generously violent action and dark humour, an area most revenge thrillers are not quite so willing to chip away at. As much of a fan of gratuitous violence as I am, there are times when I feel a moment of sadness, narrative reflection, or even just lengthy dialogue would be better suited, but then I am quickly brought back to the task at hand with a quick knife to the neck or a kick to the jaw. If there is any one film I would recommend for fans of brutal acts of violence, it would be “I Saw The Devil”.

I do however feel overall that the film may rely too much on these kinds of antics, enough so that it detracts from the potential that, with a few tweaks, it could just as easily capitalise on. There are times of mind-blowing sadness and empathy, but they are not played as often or as in-depth as they could be, instead the film begins opting for grander bouts of blood splatter and violent rape to recklessly fill the gaps. It always maintains a slight twinge and reflection of the situational distress caused to our “good guys”, but is for the most part very subtle and left on the backburner until it culminates into a glorious flame, only to later simmer back down into the same formula.

Another issue I have is the length, clocking in at an astounding two and a half hours, Kim’s very macabre expression of revenge has to find itself overcoming a stretch of long and maybe even unnecessary scenes, that make it entirely too easy for large sections of his audience to feel tired and sluggish, with the film having to fight even harder to find it’s second wind. I think that if it were edited down and cut into a two hour or even ninety minute film, Kim might have found himself playing more to the strengths of the film’s action, rather than it’s necessity in the face of tedium.

Beyond all that, I will say the film is very meticulously structured, and I applaud Kim for having put the story together the way he did. I was thoroughly enticed by the characters and their distinct exploits. As much as I feel the length of the film is slightly monotonous, I cannot deny that it proceeds steadfastly in the direction Kim has so carefully laid out for it, and makes use of this to build a very deep, very resonant series of events. The cinematography is very well done, especially in the action scenes, some of that can be seen clearly in the trailer.

Overall I very much enjoyed “I Saw The Devil”, it did not leave me with so much an awe-stricken vibe that so many classic revenge films do, such as Memento, Straw Dogs (Original '71 of course) and Unforgiven. However, I was left with a sense that the film was crafted by someone who indeed cares about the story he was tasked with making, and proceeded to bring it into reality with the best of his ability. While not an outstanding classic by it’s own right, this film is brilliantly made. And with a few major tweaks, could just as easily stand up to the likes of those mentioned above. But make no mistake, even though I feel it could be better, what it is right now is definitely skirting that border between being regarded among the best revenge films to come from Asia in a very, very long time. And I am also very satisfied I was able to come across it.

For fans of violence, sorrow and destruction, I recommend a viewing of “I Saw The Devil”. If you loved Oldboy, you will love this too.

(Below is the trailer for this film, I’ve been thinking about posting trailers along with all the films I choose to review in this thread. I may go ahead and do that, or I may just post them when I feel they significantly add to what one may expect to really see after having read my reviews. Either way, it starts with this one, so for those who sat through this ride, enjoy!)

(And yes, that scene at the end with the kick was just as awesome as you would think it to be.)

^ Watched that last year, awesome flick

I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent.

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent. [/quote]

Looper was ok for an action movie, but kind of sucked when you consider it based on a time travel movie. It was like they couldn’t decide which time travel theory to go with so just used whichever they wanted, plus the movie as a whole didn’t make much sense. I like but Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, so I was very disappointed.

/Rant

[quote]GeneticSynergy9 wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent. [/quote]

Looper was ok for an action movie, but kind of sucked when you consider it based on a time travel movie. It was like they couldn’t decide which time travel theory to go with so just used whichever they wanted, plus the movie as a whole didn’t make much sense. I like but Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, so I was very disappointed.

/Rant[/quote]

Yeah, there were some pretty prominent holes that it didn’t manage to overcome. But I’d argue that without said huge plot gaps, Looper may have been regarded as one of the more accomplished science fiction films of the early 21st century. It’s logic is inherently flawed, and the storyline was a bit uneven, but the emotional aspect of the characters and the moral pondering forced unto the audience was, in my opinion, very well done. It takes a popular concept such as time travel and riffs on the moral and ethical applications of said concept as it is manipulated by the human race, whether that be for good or evil.

As much as I feel it could have done better on it’s expression of time travel itself, I think it quite impressively captured the emotional and consequential ends to such an idea as they relate to the semi-dystopian world the film is set in. Aside from some elements of the script, which of course I will not lay too much blame on the director for, I think Johnson did a brilliant job, especially with the visuals, action, and character growth. You weren’t a fan of Levitt and Willis’ acting in Looper?

I will give the film some leeway on time travel, as it’s a concept I regard to be, if even possible, far beyond our complete comprehension. And so some logical screw-ups are inevitable to occur, I personally do not believe in the possibility of time travel, or at least not in the mediums we tend to popularly theorise it through. So far I feel Primer has been the closest to logically sound time travel film I’ve seen, not a very good movie, but it’s theory on time travel is grounds above most of the others I care to remember.

As an aside, I would precaution anyone to not watch Primer expecting a brilliant film, it’s not. Good, but no timeless (pun intended) classic. However if anyone is interested in seeing a unique and well-thought expression of time travel, then please stop by there, I shall warn that it is incredibly hard to understand the first time through. But I do like films that treat me as if I have a brain.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]GeneticSynergy9 wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent. [/quote]

Looper was ok for an action movie, but kind of sucked when you consider it based on a time travel movie. It was like they couldn’t decide which time travel theory to go with so just used whichever they wanted, plus the movie as a whole didn’t make much sense. I like but Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, so I was very disappointed.

/Rant[/quote]

Yeah, there were some pretty prominent holes that it didn’t manage to overcome. But I’d argue that without said huge plot gaps, Looper may have been regarded as one of the more accomplished science fiction films of the early 21st century. It’s logic is inherently flawed, and the storyline was a bit uneven, but the emotional aspect of the characters and the moral pondering forced unto the audience was, in my opinion, very well done. It takes a popular concept such as time travel and riffs on the moral and ethical applications of said concept as it is manipulated by the human race, whether that be for good or evil.

As much as I feel it could have done better on it’s expression of time travel itself, I think it quite impressively captured the emotional and consequential ends to such an idea as they relate to the semi-dystopian world the film is set in. Aside from some elements of the script, which of course I will not lay too much blame on the director for, I think Johnson did a brilliant job, especially with the visuals, action, and character growth. You weren’t a fan of Levitt and Willis’ acting in Looper?

I will give the film some leeway on time travel, as it’s a concept I regard to be, if even possible, far beyond our complete comprehension. And so some logical screw-ups are inevitable to occur, I personally do not believe in the possibility of time travel, or at least not in the mediums we tend to popularly theorise it through. So far I feel Primer has been the closest to logically sound time travel film I’ve seen, not a very good movie, but it’s theory on time travel is grounds above most of the others I care to remember.

As an aside, I would precaution anyone to not watch Primer expecting a brilliant film, it’s not. Good, but no timeless (pun intended) classic. However if anyone is interested in seeing a unique and well-thought expression of time travel, then please stop by there, I shall warn that it is incredibly hard to understand the first time through. But I do like films that treat me as if I have a brain.[/quote]

There were some definite holes in the concept but for me most of them I could look past because as you said, its freaking time travel and a lot of the most interesting time travel theories I have heard were pothead ramblings because we are making it up as we go with no reality to base it on. However with that said, I think they had to make a conscious decision to let you assume certain things or just figure it out for yourself for the sake of not bogging down the action and the story with overly complicated explanation. I did think it was one of the most original storylines I have seen in a movie in a while.

And Levitt’s acting as a young Bruce Willis was absolutely incredible. He nailed his mannerisms and speech patterns perfectly. I saw an interview with Willis where he said that a he had to stop the diner scene because he was watching Levitt thinking “this kid is being me perfectly” (paraphrasing).

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]GeneticSynergy9 wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent. [/quote]

Looper was ok for an action movie, but kind of sucked when you consider it based on a time travel movie. It was like they couldn’t decide which time travel theory to go with so just used whichever they wanted, plus the movie as a whole didn’t make much sense. I like but Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, so I was very disappointed.

/Rant[/quote]

Yeah, there were some pretty prominent holes that it didn’t manage to overcome. But I’d argue that without said huge plot gaps, Looper may have been regarded as one of the more accomplished science fiction films of the early 21st century. It’s logic is inherently flawed, and the storyline was a bit uneven, but the emotional aspect of the characters and the moral pondering forced unto the audience was, in my opinion, very well done. It takes a popular concept such as time travel and riffs on the moral and ethical applications of said concept as it is manipulated by the human race, whether that be for good or evil.

As much as I feel it could have done better on it’s expression of time travel itself, I think it quite impressively captured the emotional and consequential ends to such an idea as they relate to the semi-dystopian world the film is set in. Aside from some elements of the script, which of course I will not lay too much blame on the director for, I think Johnson did a brilliant job, especially with the visuals, action, and character growth. You weren’t a fan of Levitt and Willis’ acting in Looper?

I will give the film some leeway on time travel, as it’s a concept I regard to be, if even possible, far beyond our complete comprehension. And so some logical screw-ups are inevitable to occur, I personally do not believe in the possibility of time travel, or at least not in the mediums we tend to popularly theorise it through. So far I feel Primer has been the closest to logically sound time travel film I’ve seen, not a very good movie, but it’s theory on time travel is grounds above most of the others I care to remember.

As an aside, I would precaution anyone to not watch Primer expecting a brilliant film, it’s not. Good, but no timeless (pun intended) classic. However if anyone is interested in seeing a unique and well-thought expression of time travel, then please stop by there, I shall warn that it is incredibly hard to understand the first time through. But I do like films that treat me as if I have a brain.[/quote]

There were some definite holes in the concept but for me most of them I could look past because as you said, its freaking time travel and a lot of the most interesting time travel theories I have heard were pothead ramblings because we are making it up as we go with no reality to base it on. However with that said, I think they had to make a conscious decision to let you assume certain things or just figure it out for yourself for the sake of not bogging down the action and the story with overly complicated explanation. I did think it was one of the most original storylines I have seen in a movie in a while. [/quote]

Yeah I can definitely appreciate that, of Johnson setting the ideas in motion and giving a reasonably brief understanding of his time travel, then continuing to build the movie on it’s own merits and set the real meat and potatoes of it in motion without having to constantly turn back to throwing more time travel information at the audience. Whether that makes the time travel seem like a creative “seed” or a shoddy gimmick I guess is entirely down to perspective and personality, which I guess I can see both camps of, by some clear and understandable definition.

Unrelated, but I am wholly looking forward to seeing Linklater’s Before Midnight. Sadly I’m in Spain and the film doesn’t garner enough mass demand to be shown in any of my local theaters, I thought of travelling to see it, which I may indeed do soon. We can expect to see my review of that here in the very near future if everything goes right.

Way too lazy to search this thread. Anybody see Mud yet?

Michael R. Roskam’s Bullhead

This is a Belgian film I had been meaning to see for a very long time, but always managed to put it away in the back of my mind for a later time. Having spent the last couple of days taking a more fervent interest in foreign European films, I finally got around to seeing it.

Matthias Schoenaerts stars as the protagonist of the film, Jacky Vanmarsenille (some may remember Schoenaerts as Ali from Rust & Bone). Jacky is a Belgian cattle farmer, introduced to us first as an arrogant, tyrannical man with an obsessive habit for steroids and testosterone, most of which he receives along with the growth hormones he uses to force growth and muscularity amongst his cattle. Somewhere along the way, Jacky is caught up in some very ominous dealings with a notorious gangster who profits from selling hormones for cattle to willing farmers. Soon after a federal agent investigating the meat trade is murdered, and some unwelcome guests from Jacky’s traumatic and sorrowful childhood resurface into his life.

Going into this I had already seen Rust & Bone, and was glad to be reminded Schoenaerts was going to be the man fronting the cast for Bullhead. When we are introduced to his character in the first opening scene, Schoenaerts is already vibrant and convincing in his portrayal of an animalistic, aggressive, “bull-like” Jacky Vanmarsenille. I feel Roskam’s opening scene did well to introduce the character in a very straightforward and effective way, he later continues to do this over and over again to much the same efficacy once we learn more of Jacky and the trials and tribulations of his life begin to unfold.

What I found I really enjoyed with this film, was that it was not the full, brutal gangster flick I had assumed of it coming in, but slowly became much more of a dramatic character study, which I feel was a brilliant choice from Roskam to open us up to the characters, as it remains one of the more subtly powerful expressions of filmmaking that the film dwells so well under. Roskam takes his time with this unlikely turn of events, and moulds it into becoming one of the more well planned and thought-provoking analyses of humanity, torment, regret and despair that I may have seen for quite a while. Roskam takes us deep into the nuances and shadows of his characters, yet it never feels forced and is always emotionally stunning. The one person I would have to give my respect to above all else is Schoenaerts, from beginning to end his acting is breath-taking and powerfully expands the story beyond what it otherwise would be, through all his forceful, domineering demeanour, he still manages to show the internal struggle of Jacky, and the deep angst that has forever haunted him since one very shocking, very special, traumatic childhood event (the specifics of which I shall not spoil, but it is vital to the story, and bolsters it immeasurably). It is through this we begin to understand his vices and his misanthropy, finally piecing together what really makes Jacky Vanmarsenille special.

The story itself is split between it’s violent action, emotional drama, and thrilling gangster dynamics. Some may find that Roskam’s attempt to mix these together results in an uneven and somewhat convoluted plot line, and while I must agree to an extent, the end result is the necessity of all of these things to form a grander, beautiful picture. I do feel that the emotional backstory of Jacky is told in some rather uneven flashbacks, the integration of which I feel could have been improved somewhat, and that sometimes even the fleshy gangster story begins to detract from the inarguably more powerful, more intriguing analysis of Jacky Vanmarsenille and his life.

The story is very dark, if anyone is going into this expecting rainbows and happy endings, they shall be rendered sorely mistaken. This is a film about the broken woes of a man out of touch with his humanity, and struggling in futility to retain it. The re-introduction of two characters from Jacky’s childhood accelerates the story rapidly in a direction I was thoroughly glad it had. Through the somber and ruthless exploration of Jacky’s early life, we begin to uncover the reason he is in his angry, emotional attack against the world, unearthing much more than his aggression, and seeing him for the abused and manipulated man he has really grown up to be. Much like the title, Jacky’s life is representative of a caged bull, locked inside, unable to escape the horror of his memories, defending himself through anger but really being shrouded in darkness and fear.

The cinematography and pacing of the film is excellent, fast enough to maintain interest, but steady enough to let the characters marinate and thrive. For a first film, Roskam’s direction here was incredible, and definitely a force to be reckoned with once he starts to come out of his shell and produce even more films. We are not so much forced the extent of his characters, as we are given the freedom to conclude them for ourselves. Forever with an enigmatic aura, the characters never shut themselves in a loop, but are always branching out in the most unexpected of ways, solidifying my respect for Roskam’s focus on his cast and their performances.

Overall, this film is a striking and beautifully somber expression of the human species, hidden in the guise of a brutal gangster thriller, and I could not be more grateful that it was. I recommend anyone with an appreciation for dark drama and brilliant acting performances to watch Bullhead, you will not regret it.

[quote]GeneticSynergy9 wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I finally watched Looper which was freaking great I thought. Kind of a predictable ending though. Also rewatched Mississippi Burning. Having grown up where I grew up, that movie kind of strikes a nerve. I still don’t really think it is that great of a movie but the story is decent. [/quote]

Looper was ok for an action movie, but kind of sucked when you consider it based on a time travel movie. It was like they couldn’t decide which time travel theory to go with so just used whichever they wanted, plus the movie as a whole didn’t make much sense. I like but Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, so I was very disappointed.

/Rant[/quote]

Don’t sweat the time travel too much. Rian Johnson said that he was more focused on the dramatic meat of having a guy play out an existential crisis with a doppelganger (fresh twist on the more traditional device of watching him ‘wrestle with his own conscience’) than looking for scientific accuracy in what is basically just an extremely stylish macguffin.

The line “this time travel shit fries your brain like an egg” was Johnson’s way of inviting the viewer not to over-analyze it.

That said, there’s nothing in the movie, as far as I can see, which can’t be explained by many worlds theory. I did a pretty extensive write-up on why the movie plays out across a number of realities and it seems to account for even the troublesome paradox of the Rainmaker’s existence.

John Michael McDonagh’s The Guard

The Guard is an independent Irish Black comedy that runs on the already worn out buddy cop premise, but with some very satisfying original humour to work back in it’s favour. A tale of “murder, blackmail, drug trafficking and revenge”, The Guard tells the story of Sgt. Gerry Boyle, a Guard for the Garda Siochana in Connemara, the West of Ireland.

Sgt. Boyle is a cantankerous and cynical Irishman with a penchant for alcohol and drugs who happens upon the murder of a known drug trafficking operator, with clues leading him down a path of a violent, occult serial killing lead. Soon the investigation leads to the arrival of FBI Agent Wendell Everett in the small town, a wise and tenacious narcotics investigator hot on the heels of other known traffickers said to be unloading a shipment in the area.

Some may find the name of the director, John Michael McDonagh, rather familiar. Those that dig deeper would find he is the older brother of Irish filmmaker Martin McDonagh, who is known for “In Bruges” and “Seven Psychopaths”. Determined not to live in his younger brother’s shadow, John McDonagh crafted up this exquisitely charming Irish gem. For all the praise I can give to Martin McDonagh’s films, I believe his brother may have one-upped him with “The Guard”.

There are plenty of things I like about The Guard, and not much for me to really dislike at all. Perhaps my favourite is the crafty, witty dialogue McDonagh imparts here. The script is superbly written, with the dialogue being a stand-out to me as near pristine and very masterfully planned. From cynical Irish humour, to facetious racial stereotypes, to subtle inside jokes and classic cinema nods, The Guard features some of the more ironically eloquent humour I’ve seen for quite some time.

I find it somewhat reminiscent of Tarantino’s style of dialogue, but replacing the regular American tropes with some very blunt Irish flair. I found myself laughing uncontrollably at various points throughout, utterly enticed by the characters as expressed through their dialogue. If there is one reason to watch this film, it is no doubt the genius mind of John Michael McDonagh at play with his screenplays and character dynamics.

Another I enjoy is the kind of creative addition of a “Western” element to the buddy cop genre. Ironically humorous, the Western-themed soundtrack and gunplay warms my cockles. Even some of the script itself is very subtly reminiscent of Western film normalities. I adore the soundtrack, by itself it is brilliant, but even under the unorthodox inclusion of it to soundtrack this film, I feel it is perhaps bettered just by being in a fresh, welcomed setting.

Brendan Gleeson (Sgt. Boyle) and Don Cheadle (Agent Everett) are both very good in their roles, but Gleeson in particular is an absolute standout to me, much like he did with McDonagh’s younger brother as Ken in “In Bruges”, he brings a particular charm and marvellously blunt, eccentric humour to the film. Gleeson seems so effortless in his role, throwing himself back and forth between his character’s weary, careless attitude and his admirable sense of empathy and kindness.

I would perhaps regard his performance here as better than “In Bruges”, as great as he was there, and as similar as some of the personalities may be between both characters, there’s a very finely expressed charm he has here that cannot be rivalled.

If anyone is interested in a hilarious black comedy and can understand the subtlety in cynical Irish humour, I would fully recommend The Guard. Martin McDonagh may have set the tone for these kinds of films first, but I feel John Michael McDonagh is the dark horse we should really be keeping an eye out for. For this to be his directorial debut, and for it to come with such ease and grace is astounding, the man himself has, I believe, three other ideas locked away for the future, with one already well into production. If there is a name film lovers should keep lingering in the back of their mind, it is McDonagh.

As a caveat, this film is not for the prude amongst you. If any of the humour in the trailer rustled your jimmies, look away now. But if it didn’t, be prepared for an even better display once the film gets in motion, this is one film that isn’t afraid to chip away at some taboo boundaries for the sake of great comedy.

Yeah a great show - but I wondered if the Irish humour would travel? Any American responses?

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
John Michael McDonagh’s The Guard

The Guard is an independent Irish Black comedy that runs on the already worn out buddy cop premise, but with some very satisfying original humour to work back in it’s favour. A tale of “murder, blackmail, drug trafficking and revenge”, The Guard tells the story of Sgt. Gerry Boyle, a Guard for the Garda Siochana in Connemara, the West of Ireland.

Sgt. Boyle is a cantankerous and cynical Irishman with a penchant for alcohol and drugs who happens upon the murder of a known drug trafficking operator, with clues leading him down a path of a violent, occult serial killing lead. Soon the investigation leads to the arrival of FBI Agent Wendell Everett in the small town, a wise and tenacious narcotics investigator hot on the heels of other known traffickers said to be unloading a shipment in the area.

Some may find the name of the director, John Michael McDonagh, rather familiar. Those that dig deeper would find he is the older brother of Irish filmmaker Martin McDonagh, who is known for “In Bruges” and “Seven Psychopaths”. Determined not to live in his younger brother’s shadow, John McDonagh crafted up this exquisitely charming Irish gem. For all the praise I can give to Martin McDonagh’s films, I believe his brother may have one-upped him with “The Guard”.

There are plenty of things I like about The Guard, and not much for me to really dislike at all. Perhaps my favourite is the crafty, witty dialogue McDonagh imparts here. The script is superbly written, with the dialogue being a stand-out to me as near pristine and very masterfully planned. From cynical Irish humour, to facetious racial stereotypes, to subtle inside jokes and classic cinema nods, The Guard features some of the more ironically eloquent humour I’ve seen for quite some time.

I find it somewhat reminiscent of Tarantino’s style of dialogue, but replacing the regular American tropes with some very blunt Irish flair. I found myself laughing uncontrollably at various points throughout, utterly enticed by the characters as expressed through their dialogue. If there is one reason to watch this film, it is no doubt the genius mind of John Michael McDonagh at play with his screenplays and character dynamics.

Another I enjoy is the kind of creative addition of a “Western” element to the buddy cop genre. Ironically humorous, the Western-themed soundtrack and gunplay warms my cockles. Even some of the script itself is very subtly reminiscent of Western film normalities. I adore the soundtrack, by itself it is brilliant, but even under the unorthodox inclusion of it to soundtrack this film, I feel it is perhaps bettered just by being in a fresh, welcomed setting.

Brendan Gleeson (Sgt. Boyle) and Don Cheadle (Agent Everett) are both very good in their roles, but Gleeson in particular is an absolute standout to me, much like he did with McDonagh’s younger brother as Ken in “In Bruges”, he brings a particular charm and marvellously blunt, eccentric humour to the film. Gleeson seems so effortless in his role, throwing himself back and forth between his character’s weary, careless attitude and his admirable sense of empathy and kindness.

I would perhaps regard his performance here as better than “In Bruges”, as great as he was there, and as similar as some of the personalities may be between both characters, there’s a very finely expressed charm he has here that cannot be rivalled.

If anyone is interested in a hilarious black comedy and can understand the subtlety in cynical Irish humour, I would fully recommend The Guard. Martin McDonagh may have set the tone for these kinds of films first, but I feel John Michael McDonagh is the dark horse we should really be keeping an eye out for. For this to be his directorial debut, and for it to come with such ease and grace is astounding, the man himself has, I believe, three other ideas locked away for the future, with one already well into production. If there is a name film lovers should keep lingering in the back of their mind, it is McDonagh.

As a caveat, this film is not for the prude amongst you. If any of the humour in the trailer rustled your jimmies, look away now. But if it didn’t, be prepared for an even better display once the film gets in motion, this is one film that isn’t afraid to chip away at some taboo boundaries for the sake of great comedy.

[/quote]

Looks awesome. Incredible cast. Well done on the review as well, as usual.

Broken City.

I think the potential was there, with such a stellar cast. But I thought it fell flat a bit.