I couldn't go lower than 4 based on the acting. It may not resonate properly due to writing/editing but the performances are top class

It was all so boring that I can only disagree. There are a couple of moments where Christopher Walken was pretty decent but everything else is pure ass. They barely do anything, they barely say anything and they take three hours to get bored enough to stop.

The only acting done in that film was by the Vietnamese extras.

What a dreadful film.

Nope 6/10

Feel like I'm being generous with this score. It started off good but then it just got...I dunno if I wanna say weird or outright dumb. Probably some combination of both. Seemed like they were going for scary with added humor at first, but then that all gets tossed to the side for a big ole spoonful of "wtf" or something. If it wasn't for the first half or so of the movie I'd probably rate it a 4. Maybe a 3.

what an actor says and what an actor does dont fall into the relm of acting. Walken and De Niro get every ounce of emotion that could possibly be gotten out of this really awful script. They sell these scenes with total conviction. It may be uninteresting but it not on them.

Key is the modern day Shamalan and i mean that as an insult

It is partially on them, they chose to be in it and agreed to be directed by a moron.
John Savage does a Curly “Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!” at one point.

Terrible!

I’m not into defending anything about it besides the cinematography. That really is good work, but that and Walken don’t make for much of a picture. De Niro only had one good scene, the bit where he doesn’t shoot the deer.

3/10

The 1st russian roulette scene was good for De Niro. Very good.

I'm not ready to go there yet.

But he is def trending that direction. The next movie will definitely be a good indicator.

Fall - 7/10

Really fun little movie, pretty much what you would expect, but still fun.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...22_film%29.jpg

It’s Peele not Key and none of his films bear any relation in style or substance to an M Night Shyamalan film.

Peele is about subtext, Shyamalan is about context.

It’s as simple as that.

Also “Fall” sucked big balls, it’s just 90 minutes of cleavage on a pole.
If I was fifteen it would have been pretty great.

Michael Shannon in Bullet Train was better than everything in TDH and he streamlined the entire concept of Russian Roulette.

Michael Cimino died an old lady.

Keys subtext and I'm going to double down on getting his name wrong, subtext is non-existent. There is no subtext whatsoever. It's all text masquerading as subtext.

There is pretty massive subtext in both of his previous films, subtext made obvious by the twists in each film.
Admittedly “Nope” is a different animal and it doesn’t appear to fit the formula but that’s likely so Peele can’t be pigeonholed.

Hate the guy and his films for the right reasons at least.

If its made obvious its, categorically, not subtext. Its pretext at best

There is, by definition, no subtext in his films

Forget the cleavage for a moment, the movie was fun because of the stomach dropping moments. Plus, it's got freaking Negan.

It’s subtext, subtext that becomes obvious by the end of the film(if you have a brain in your nut).

You don’t get to invent requirements for subtext based on your own misunderstanding of it.

Irrational hatred is fine too if you want to just admit it?

There’s no point dressing it up.

Subtext is by definition implicit. His themes are explicit. This is not subtext. This is a hacks idea of subtext. Its literally in the definition. You can be wrong about this i dont mind.

It’s not explicit.

You’re just angry because all of the subtext is common knowledge now.

Retrospect is a bitch, but if you think you can redefine subtext you are having a laugh.

You’re going to be really mad when you find out Night Of The Living Dead is essentially pure subtext.

It’s not just about zombies!

Jesus man :lol:

False!

It’s just fairly obvious. A lot of people missed it though, which is how you know it wasn’t spelled out quite as explicitly as say…The Bible.

I wondered if you were really misunderstanding the word there but a quick search tells me you’ve just weaponised it to be a dick.

I’m totally fine with that.
I just had to know.

See How They Run - 8/10

Was pleasantly surprised to see this newly available on Disney+, thought it looked neat and fun. After watching it I can confirm it is neat and fun.

The 355 - 2.5/5

Concept was good. A bit predictable.

The Gray Man - 3/5

That the new John Major biopic?

Nah. This is the one on Netflix with Ryan Gossling and Chris Evans directed by the Russo Bros.

Heat - 4.75/5

Heat was so good it inspired a real life nutty robbery with crazy body armour and shit.
Heat taught me that one scene really can define a whole film for certain cinema viewers. It should be remembered for the strength of the performances, but even I cannot get enough of that robbery scene. It’s the best thing Tom Sizemore ever got anywhere near.

This post is sponsored by the car in Street Fighter 2's bonus round
 

Pinocchio (2022): 1 1/4 stars out of 4.

Good fucking Lzzy, this thing has almost no soul to it. Everything seems like it's hitting points out of obligation more than anything else. I don't get the inclusion of the performer that befriends Pinocchio in Stromboli's show or why they made Monstro an actual fucking sea monster, either. What was wrong with just a whale? Plus, outside of a couple of good performances, Keegan-Michael Key as 'Honest' Jon in particular, no one is really bringing anything with a lot of weight to the story. Tom Hanks is trying, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a fair job with his impersonations but the whole package just comes across as awkward. I have a TON of questions about Pleasure Island, too. Like, do the people just replace all of the glass the kids smash after every venture? How lucrative is this donkey-selling business if they can maintain this kind of upkeep? Yeah, I know, it's a story about a fucking puppet coming to life, but come on. These live-action films just keep striking out and I have almost no confidence in The Little Mermaid.

Thankfully, I was able to cleanse my palette with Toy Story 4 afterwards. I mean, I'd already seen it but it was still a welcome viewing.

Mulholland Drive (2001) - 7/10


This is the kind of film that defies reviewing. The plot is impossible to summarize and its not meant to be digested linearly. This is the kind of film that improves with repeated viewings. What i can say is its an abstract film that tackles hollywood and the industry. There's a lot going on and it has more depth than i imagine 10 viewings could sift through. The journey and the performances were captivating but if you're not into abstract film making give this a hard pass.

have you seen inland empire?

When i picked this up it was between Mulholland and Inland. I went with Mulholland because it was earlier in the filmography. I tend to like seeing the conversation the writer/director is having over the course of the career.

Should i pick it up too?

This post is sponsored by Camden Yards
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OiCfHW3N3vo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watching a video like that, even if its right in its conclusions, defeats the point of watching of it

I always watch chronologically if I can help it.

if you were into Mulholland, absolutely grab inland. it is a mindfuck of the grandest order. truly an experience unlike anything else.

The film, and abstract films in general, wants you to engage with it. To think deeply about the visual imagery to your fullest ability. To discuss it with others. Draw, perhaps (and perhaps only technically,) wrong conclusions.