[quote]Karado wrote:
Yuck, the ‘twist’ in THE VILLAGE was that they were in the Modern times rather than the
1800’s…there, if I just spoiled it for someone I really didn’t because I just saved you
about 2 hours I wish I could get back. THE VILLAGE is also a sure cure for Insomnia… I’ve seen
a better film on teeth.
[/quote]
You’ve got it all wrong. The real twist in The Village was that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time.
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Yuck, the ‘twist’ in THE VILLAGE was that they were in the Modern times rather than the
1800’s…there, if I just spoiled it for someone I really didn’t because I just saved you
about 2 hours I wish I could get back. THE VILLAGE is also a sure cure for Insomnia… I’ve seen
a better film on teeth.
[/quote]
You’ve got it all wrong. The real twist in The Village was that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time.[/quote]
Dude, you just ruined it for me!!
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Yuck, the ‘twist’ in THE VILLAGE was that they were in the Modern times rather than the
1800’s…there, if I just spoiled it for someone I really didn’t because I just saved you
about 2 hours I wish I could get back. THE VILLAGE is also a sure cure for Insomnia… I’ve seen
a better film on teeth.
[/quote]
You’ve got it all wrong. The real twist in The Village was that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time.[/quote]
Dude, you just ruined it for me!![/quote]
Haha, Shyamalan should just come out with a movie where there is absolutely no twists, anywhere in the film, just clear cut story progression from beginning to end. I think that’s his only chance of redemption, to surprise us with no surprises.
What’s funny about M. Night’s ‘one hit wonder’ THE SIXTH SENSE was that audiences that
saw the film RESPECTED it so much that they did not give away the ending to family
and friends that hadn’t seen it yet…I saw the film weeks after it’s release because I don’t
like packed houses so much, so I waited for the crowds to die down a bit, and nobody told me
about the reveal at the end, as a matter of fact, they didn’t even hint there WAS a reveal.
I actually liked his second film UNBREAKABLE, and the ‘reveal’ although not as good
as TSS, was interesting…but then I thought…(SPOILER ALERT)…about WHY would Samuel L. Jackson even
try to find his polar opposite? For what PURPOSE? Then I thought about it again and concluded that
people aren’t ‘logical’ anyway, and there ARE twisted fucks out there that want to know shit just for
the sake of knowing, with no purpose whatsoever, and that’s what Samuel L. Jackson’s twisted quest was
about…just knowing, and at least he FOUND what he was looking for.
And yes, I know TSS was NOT his ‘one hit wonder’…I meant more CULTURALLY it was his one hit wonder,
as SIGNS, which I did not like much at all, was an enormous box office hit as well.
I too was a fan of Unbreakable, of course it had it’s innate flaws, but the premise itself was intriguing to me. A story of a superhero that doesn’t know he’s a superhero, I feel like Christopher Nolan could have done a great job with that, don’t ask me why, I think it has something to do with Memento and Batman.
Shyamalan has the ability to make something good, but he’s worked himself into a corner on sticking to the same kind of suspenseful “mind-fuck” for too long. I think that’s probably why Sixth Sense will always be regarded as his best, from the nostalgic sense of not knowing what kind of director he was when you first saw it.
Know what isn’t a sure cure for Insomnia? Christopher Nolan’s “Insomnia”, that film is the bomb.
That’s because INSOMNIA has 3400 shots in it’s 111 minutes… enough to try and keep you awake AND induce a
seizure at the same time…lol, I liked it too and Ebert gave it 3 1/2 Stars.
Ebert liked UNBREAKABLE as well, I’m really gonna miss his writing style…good stuff.
[quote]Karado wrote:
That’s because INSOMNIA has 3400 shots in it’s 111 minutes… enough to try and keep you awake AND induce a
seizure at the same time…lol, I liked it too and Ebert gave it 3 1/2 Stars.
Ebert liked UNBREAKABLE as well, I’m really gonna miss his writing style…good stuff.
[/quote]
Definitely. The fact that I could trust Ebert to consistently, 90+% of the time, discourage me from, drive me to, or teach me of certain movies is good; but it was finally his clever, clean, sententious, readable style married to his scholarship and passion that really sold me on his essays.
I find myself agreeing with A.O. Scott at least as much as I do with Ebert, and for the same reasons, but Scott, I think, sometimes falls in love with the sound of his own voice a little too much for my liking. I don’t know if it has to do with his time pickling with the other “intellectuals” at the NY Times or it’s just who he is, but I definitely found myself gravitating toward Ebert for an accessibility that existed despite the fact that he could write most living screenwriters and authors under the table. I never felt like he was trying to impress me with his style. And yet, that’s what he would end up doing so much of the time.
Again, this one really hurts.
I’ve liked James Berardinelli’s reviews for the longest time and agree with his reviews at around the same
90+% level as I did with Ebert’s…James’s likes and dislikes are almost spot on for me, and I think
you’ll appreciate him very much Cortes, in fact Ebert was a FAN of Berardinelli’s, he’s a contributor to the “Rotten Tomatoes” collaborative reviews site as well.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I’ve liked James Berardinelli’s reviews for the longest time and agree with his reviews at around the same
90+% level as I did with Ebert’s…James’s likes and dislikes are almost spot on for me, and I think
you’ll appreciate him very much Cortes, in fact Ebert was a FAN of Berardinelli’s, he’s a contributor to the “Rotten Tomotoes” collaborative reviews site as well.
Hey, thanks so much, Karado! I was not aware of him until now. I will certainly take a look at his work.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I’ve liked James Berardinelli’s reviews for the longest time and agree with his reviews at around the same
90+% level as I did with Ebert’s…James’s likes and dislikes are almost spot on for me, and I think
you’ll appreciate him very much Cortes, in fact Ebert was a FAN of Berardinelli’s, he’s a contributor to the “Rotten Tomotoes” collaborative reviews site as well.
I don’t think I’m such a fan of Berardinelli. His opinions of Olympus Has Fallen and The Evil Dead remake recently are entirely in contrast to mine. Overall to me he seems too generous with the bad movies and too critical of the good ones. When a film is undeniably bad he seems to acknowledge that, and likewise for great ones, other than that I see no real saving grace. Of course these are subjective opinions, but I find them in some strange kind of doubted reversal once film quality reaches the middle ground and slightly higher.
At least he hates Freddy Got Fingered, I’m sick of all the people who think Tom Greene is some kind of master of Avant-Garde cinema. And The Master Of Disguise; Dana Carvey, Dana fucking Carvey, do not even get me started.
No problem Cortes, far be it from me to personally speculate who Ebert would have passed
the proverbial Torch to as far as film critics are concerned, but judging from Ebert’s
opinion, it would be safe to say that he would have passed the movie critic torch over to Berardinelli,
which he kinda did anyway before he passed.
Been going through his reviews and I’m liking Bernardinelli very, very much, Karado. Thanks again.
Here’s the one I’m REALLY looking forward to seeing most right now:
James’ EVIL DEAD review is 2 stars out of four…I haven’t seen the film, but did you LIKE
ED Big Kahuna?
I don’t walk in lockstep with every critic, and I don’t plan on watching ED anytime soon.
anyway here’s his review…to each his own, no problem.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Been going through his reviews and I’m liking Bernardinelli very, very much, Karado. Thanks again.
Here’s the one I’m REALLY looking forward to seeing most right now:
I found Spring Breakers to be reasonable, it’s better than most of Harmony Korine’s movies for sure. I like how absurdly chaotic it is, it’s a film to enjoy, but it’s pretty easily forgettable in retrospect. By no means a waste of time though.
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
I’ve liked James Berardinelli’s reviews for the longest time and agree with his reviews at around the same
90+% level as I did with Ebert’s…James’s likes and dislikes are almost spot on for me, and I think
you’ll appreciate him very much Cortes, in fact Ebert was a FAN of Berardinelli’s, he’s a contributor to the “Rotten Tomotoes” collaborative reviews site as well.
I don’t think I’m such a fan of Berardinelli. His opinions of Olympus Has Fallen and The Evil Dead remake recently are entirely in contrast to mine. Overall to me he seems too generous with the bad movies and too critical of the good ones. When a film is undeniably bad he seems to acknowledge that, and likewise for great ones, other than that I see no real saving grace. Of course these are subjective opinions, but I find them in some strange kind of doubted reversal once film quality reaches the middle ground and slightly higher.
At least he hates Freddy Got Fingered, I’m sick of all the people who think Tom Greene is some kind of master of Avant-Garde cinema. And The Master Of Disguise; Dana Carvey, Dana fucking Carvey, do not even get me started.[/quote]
Haha, I thought me and my best friend and brother were the only three people on Earth who actually like Tom Greene. I didn’t know there were actually people who spoke fondly of him, lol.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
I’ve liked James Berardinelli’s reviews for the longest time and agree with his reviews at around the same
90+% level as I did with Ebert’s…James’s likes and dislikes are almost spot on for me, and I think
you’ll appreciate him very much Cortes, in fact Ebert was a FAN of Berardinelli’s, he’s a contributor to the “Rotten Tomotoes” collaborative reviews site as well.
I don’t think I’m such a fan of Berardinelli. His opinions of Olympus Has Fallen and The Evil Dead remake recently are entirely in contrast to mine. Overall to me he seems too generous with the bad movies and too critical of the good ones. When a film is undeniably bad he seems to acknowledge that, and likewise for great ones, other than that I see no real saving grace. Of course these are subjective opinions, but I find them in some strange kind of doubted reversal once film quality reaches the middle ground and slightly higher.
At least he hates Freddy Got Fingered, I’m sick of all the people who think Tom Greene is some kind of master of Avant-Garde cinema. And The Master Of Disguise; Dana Carvey, Dana fucking Carvey, do not even get me started.[/quote]
Haha, I thought me and my best friend and brother were the only three people on Earth who actually like Tom Greene. I didn’t know there were actually people who spoke fondly of him, lol.
[/quote]
This year alone I’ve had at least three people hum the Backwards man song in my presence, in totally unrelated situations with people that barely know each other. At least it’s not the bum song, I don’t think I could take it.
Fully in agreement with how they broke down Scorsese’s GoodFellas here, I find a completely unique aspect in Scorsese’s directive style that comes out vividly in GoodFellas, and perhaps to a greater extent in Raging Bull. If one of those films isn’t his masterpiece, the other sure as hell is.
A very understated film by him is The King Of Comedy, it came out just a few years after Raging Bull, and while it’s not the most graceful or easiest Scorsese film to sit through (It has an ominous creepiness to it), it definitely deserves mention. If anyone hasn’t seen it I would recommend a viewing.
Damn that’s a hell of a face, I love this scene just for that face and that music. There’s something undeniably cool about this, all thirty seconds of it. De Niro’s acting has always been precise and efficient on a grand scale, but it has never been honed in as much as when he worked with Scorsese.
[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
Fully in agreement with how they broke down Scorsese’s GoodFellas here, I find a completely unique aspect in Scorsese’s directive style that comes out vividly in GoodFellas, and perhaps to a greater extent in Raging Bull. If one of those films isn’t his masterpiece, the other sure as hell is.
A very understated film by him is The King Of Comedy, it came out just a few years after Raging Bull, and while it’s not the most graceful or easiest Scorsese film to sit through (It has an ominous creepiness to it), it definitely deserves mention. If anyone hasn’t seen it I would recommend a viewing.[/quote]
I loved The King of Comedy. It was a completely different and yet somehow totally familiar role for DeNiro at that time. It’s a very tight movie, it’s just not your typical Scorcese OR DeNiro fare, and viewing it as such can be disconcerting or somewhat unfair.
Years ago I got my brother Ebert’s book “I Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated this movie!”. It was a hit to say the least. I thumbed through it myself and was constantly cracking up at the reviews.