| Ex Machina This was the best film I've seen in a long time, I can't fault it anywhere, it's amazing 10/10. Jurassic world It's alright but nowhere near as good as the previous 3. I'd say it's like 7/10, still worth the watch. The giver Really good concept and filmed really well. 9/10. Divurgent I didn't enjoy it quite as much as the giver but it was still really good and worth seeing. 8/10. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| Dawn of the planet of the apes, great movie with an interesting take on the original planet of the apes. The battle scenes are awesome, complete with gun-wielding apes riding horses and wrecking havoc everywhere. It also shows the apes as an interesting, intelligent and compassionate community. However, the humans are generic characters who are not very interesting. You have the generic good guy Malcolm, who isn't the most interesting. Despite having a great actor like Gary Oldman, the humans aren't very interesting and that is something to work on in the next movie. Nevertheless, its a great movie and I'm looking forward to the next installment in the series. 8/10 |
| Jupiter Ascending - Really good movie (for me at least). I've enjoyed especially the sci-fi locations sometimes mixed with baroque and gothic style. One scene reminds me the one from Final Fantasy X. |
 |
| Rewatched "Before Sunrise", 9/10 It was even better than the first watch: the characters are enjoyable, the chemistry is definitely there, the dialogue is credible, from simple to grand and everything in between, and the sights are beautiful :D If only Bakemonogatari was half as good... |
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)  Directed By: Steven Spielberg Written By: Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz Music By: John Williams Starring: Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones Kate Capshaw as Wilhelmina "Willie" Scott Amrish Puri as Mola Ram Jonathan Ke Quan as Short Round Roshan Seth as Chattar Lal Philip Stone as Captain Philip Blumburtt I'll admit, action isn't my favorite genre. Unless the action involves stunts that would blow my mind, I'd prefer a thriller or drama any day. That said - goddamn. Temple of Doom is one hilarious movie, and a very fun adventure. What an amazing sequel that surpasses its predecessor in many ways. Sure, there are still a few ridiculous action tropes needed for the plot to move along, like the timely arrival of the cavalry to rescue Indiana from the bad guys (instead of forcing our hero to come up with some sort of creative plan to outwit the stacked odds). That last part of the movie did lower my score a little bit, but it's largely a nitpick compared to the excellent acting and well-written characters the entire cast has provided. I had also initially thought that Willie would be a less likable character compared to Marion from Raiders, but Huyck and Katz (along with Kate Capshaw's acting) proved me wrong by subverting the 'posh princess' cliche, turning Wilhelmina into an aggressively-fun woman, whose banter with Indiana I greatly enjoyed. It's with the wonderful combination of this witty script full of original dialogues and Harrison Ford's charisma boosted to eleven that this film manages to give me such a fun time I had my entire attention devoted to the film like a little kid discovering Indiana for the first time. And I just have to mention this clever reference to the sword scene from the first film: Despite being a prequel, the humor nonetheless works very well. The film's plot is relatively darker than the first film, but I don't think any of the more violent aspects had anything to do with the increase in depth to Indiana's character here. We got to see Indiana suffering a greater ordeal in this movie than the first film, but I feel that the same could be achieved without the violence anyway. Not that the violence distracts from the enjoyment of the film, of course, but I think it's to the writers' credits that the best moments in the film did not involve the simplistic 'grittiness' we see today. 9/10 |
| How To Train Your Dragon - I'm glad that I've finally watched that - dragons were unbelieveably adorable and the plot was quite decent, without too many cliches. Also, one thing really surprised me during film's ending... 8/10 |
  |
Mission: Impossible III  Just shoot her already. Directed By: J.J. Abrams Written By: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and J.J. Abrams Starring: Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell Billy Crudup as John Musgrave Michelle Monaghan as Julia "Jules" Meade Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Declan Gormley Keri Russell as Lindsey Farris Maggie Q as Zhen Lei Laurence Fishburne as Theodore Brassel What a large list of 'Starring'; ironically, few of them I really cared for. Unlike the first 'Mission', Mission III takes itself too seriously and forced me to treat its characters as serious dramatic roles as well, instead of their more fun and exaggerated counterparts in the first film. As dramatic roles, they are as monotonous as this movie. My second rewatch of Mission III has not been a pleasant viewing; it gets less exciting each time. That's the problem with action films meant for the mere value of 'entertainment' - they can only 'entertain' you for so long before you see it done better in other films, and they become as meaningful as the consumption of popcorn while watching a movie. Without the hyperbole of Mission I, Mission III becomes a dreary ride that blends in with rest of the 'action blockbusters' out there, no more unique and just as cheap in value as Parker, The Transporter sequels, or any of Statham's films. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually thankful now for Brad Bird's return to humor in Ghost Protocol because this cliche seriousness just doesn't work. The team is generic and uninteresting, and only Simon Pegg brought some relief with his quirky personality. My opinion about Lawrence Fishburne is largely unchanged - you could replace him with an angrier Alec Baldwin and the result is mostly the same. How many times do we need to suffer through another hard-ass authoritative figure with a soft spot? Was I supposed to be surprised that Brassel's not the traitor? And as for this marriage sub-plot rigidly forced into the Mission: Impossible universe, it couldn't have dulled me more. Perhaps it would be filled with wonder to newcomers to the spy genre (or superhero stories about working behind their loved ones, for that matter), but I found it a contrived insertion that seeks to coerce drama out of an over-the-top franchise. Abrams' pretentiousness over the "Rabbit's Foot" was just the stinker to add on top of the garbage pile. 5/10 |
| I watched an extremely deep Chinese movie "ashes" something, from the 90th. I don't know if the move was good or bad, or to tell the truth, I didn't even get what the movie was about. It even took me some time to realise which one who was the main character. And once again, it was deep and slow. 0-10/10 I don't know xP |
BeilihuaJun 30, 2015 4:19 AM
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade  Directed By: Steven Spielberg Written By: Jeffrey Boam and Tom Stoppard Music By: John Williams Starring: Harrison Ford as Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. Denholm Elliott as Dr. Marcus Brody Alison Doody as Dr. Elsa Schneider John Rhys-Davies as Sallah Julian Glover as Walter Donovan Sean Connery as Professor Henry Jones I uh... ahem. I've tried but uh... I don't like The Last Crusade. *hides* Okay, maybe 'don't like' is a bit of an exaggeration. I actually found it to be a better film than the first two. Indiana's character-growth here is much deeper as we not only discover the source for his fear of snakes, Indiana even managed to have a more significant questioning of faith than the first film. Henry Jones Sr. also served a significant role in adding to Indiana's character development as the son tries to impress his father (only to have his 'wild derring-do' be met with disappointing gazes by the introvert Henry). I also LOVE that opening scene with young Indiana Jones. The way it ended with the leader of the robbers giving Indy his fedora right before it cuts to the present day Indiana smiling giddily like a kid was PERFECT. It was such a great scene, and it really shows Spielberg's talent in bringing out the innocence of a child under an impressive spotlight. Most important of all, the abandonment of the Grail not only continued the symbolism of Indiana gaining treasures beyond the obvious fortune and glory, but also rings true the old adage that the journey is sometimes better than the destination, that this whole MacGuffin-chase for the Holy Grail isn't so much about the Grail itself, but the fun we would have being with our beloved hero. So yes, there are actually quite a lot of things that make the film a more superior one than the previous two. That said, I found it considerably tedious to enjoy the film as much as the first two adventures. First of all, Henry Jones. While his role was indeed important, I couldn't like him that much at all. Unlike Willie, he's annoying for a totally different reason - making our hero look stupid. See, when Willie gets annoying, she only makes herself look stupid, and that's funny. We laughed at her as Indiana and Short Round did. But when Henry comes along, he does all sorts of goofy things that make Indiana look bad. That just kinda takes away the fun a little bit. And it's not even done to make Indiana seem more human and vulnerable like when he was bewitched in Temple of Doom, it was done to make fun of Indiana's character. Henry quickly became that bookworm kid at school you used to make fun of because of his smug-attitude, especially when he revealed that "Indiana" was the name of the dog. And then there's Elsa Schneider. Let's see - Marion was a badass woman who could hold her liquor, while Willie was a hilarious comic relief whose existence is meant to be a joke. What does Elsa contribute to the franchise, exactly? I mean, what's so distinct about her character that makes her interesting? I guess you could say she's like a reflection of Indiana, and her ultimate fate showed what could happen if Indiana ever got greedy like he almost did in Temple of Doom (fortunate and glory). The thing that bothered me a lot though was that she had such a boring opening. Marion was introduced to us through a drinking contest which she won with a spectacular victory, while Willie had a fantastic musical number that was fresh and fun. Elsa, on the other hand, had a relatively normal introduction with Indiana making a pass at her. Elsa would continue to be uninteresting until the revelation that she was working for the bad guys (not much of a revelation, IMO, as I had already sensed a villainy in her beforehand), and even then, she didn't catch my attention too much until I understood what the film was trying to do - make me feel sorry for her, which I'm not. Those are my two main problems with the film, and much like the two previous films, the fight sequence (this time with the tank) just isn't my kind of entertainment. It dragged on and on, and while the contrast between a horse and a tank is supposed to be interesting, I was just sitting there wishing that the scene would end quickly. To be fair though, when the scene ended, the scene where Henry mourned the seeming death of Indy was really well-done and humorous, so it isn't all bad. And despite my personal complaints, I just can't overlook the good points this film has, as it really outweighs the bad ones in terms of the significant contributions to the story. The religious undertones are done especially well here, more so than Raiders, and the film is better for it. 8/10 Still a solid addition to the franchise, unlike what Crystal Skull looks like... |
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  How Crystal Skull haters reacted watching this film. Directed By: Steven Spielberg Written By: David Koepp Story By: George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson Music By: John Williams (thankfully) Starring: Harrison Ford as Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. Cate Blanchett as Irina Spalko Karen Allen reprising as Marion Ravenwood Ray Winstone as George "Mac" McHale John Hurt as Harold "Ox" Oxley Jim Broadbent as Charles Stanforth Shia LaBeouf as Henry "Mutt Williams" Jones III There were a number of times in movie sequels when the fans want the original actor to reprise an iconic role (such as Michael Keaton in Batman), but it's just not practical. This is unfortunately one of those times. Harrison Ford is getting old, and his entertainment value as an action hero is wearing thin. That might sound like blasphemy to you, and though it is uncomfortable for me to write this, but Ford just can't hold it as well anymore. That said, Crystal Skull isn't that bad, some credits in due to Ford reprising his role. Not that bad as the haters claimed, but still pretty bad. First things first - the opening. Now, not having grown up with the Indiana films, I never saw the appeal of Raiders - at least not the way others seem to see it (as a masterpiece). It's a really entertaining film, sure, but the level of individual enjoyment between me and other people are at a bit of a dissonance here. Having said that, I could agree that Raiders has plenty of 'iconic moments', and that includes the giant boulder and the retrieval of the golden idol. The same could be said for Temple of Doom, when the film opens up with an exotic Asian musical number, and of course, The Last Crusade has (IMO) the best opening ever with Indiana flashing back to the innocence of his childhood (I'm still as giddily happy as Indiana was when thinking about that scene). Crystal Skill lacks as interesting an opening. There's a nice tease with Indy's shadow cast on the car before his actual face is shown, and the following sequence hearkens back to the days of the Nazis, but that's all about as unique as it gets. Watching this as a Generation-Y kid, and having just finished The Last Crusade only yesterday, that Indiana shadow also had little effect on me. The opening was made worse by those annoying teenagers playing Hound Dog. They seemed like some kind of omen foretelling just how much we'll hate the rest of the film. We're not off to a good start. The reminiscence of friends lost by Indy in the first act was quite brilliant, I admit. Indy's age is constantly reminded of in the film on intention (probably due to Ford's advice to writer David Koepp about adding more references to his age in the script). It works fine, and has potential to remind the audience that the cowboy derring-do of the old days are fancier and more fun than your modern day soulless CGI sci-fi nonsensicals... if only the script (and the CGI-flooded special effects) managed to live up to that potential, which it did not. The rest of the story is colorful and has a constant change of set-pieces to keep things moving dynamically. There's a rather interesting scene where Mutt fences with Irina in between two trucks, and another fun scene with giant fire-ants that's yet another throwback to giant monster insects of greyscale movies. The variety in the story actually helped these action sequences become more memorable than the truck-fight of Raiders or the bridge-confrontation of Temple (the tank of Crusade was easily forgettable). I also really liked the throwback to the 1950s B-movies with aliens, especially the design of the "Doom Town" situated in the Nevada nuclear test site that brings memories of the old days of 'homey '50s' television shows (you know the kind; mothers baking cookies for boy-scout children who could do no wrong). Even though it was just a model town, those few minutes spent there really made me feel like I've traveled back in time, and that's what films are supposed to do, to give you that kind of illusion. And there were other scenes in the film that do that kind of thing too with its throwbacks, like the tree-swinging sequence with Shia LaBeouf that reminded me of the Tarzan days back in the '30s. But unfortunately, I cared rather little for those fantastic scenes in the end because of the most important part of an Indy film was not being done well: the characters. They aren't that impressive - they are merely 'just okay', a phrase you might hear a lot from descriptions of modern blockbusters. To be honest, one of the best things about Temple of Doom was not its comedy - it's Harrison Ford. Ford's emotions were so dynamic in that movie that it was just a joy watching him acting out that role. He also kicks a lot more ass in that film than the other three. Due to how violent the story was, Indy was required to match up to the ruthlessness of the villains and be even more badass and just as powerful as the bad guys - or as they say, the badder the villain, the better the hero (I consider enslaving children a bit more personal than the one-dimensional Nazism). Here in Crystal Skull, due to his age, I'm afraid Indy just feels more 'restrained' with his action. You could see that he's moving slower and more sluggish than before. I'm not blaming him; it's just an inevitable fact of life. Then there's the Actual Plagiarist Shia LaBeouf. To be fair to him, I initially thought he was going to be as annoying as one of those teenage actors you see in movies like Jurassic World, but thankfully, he actually has some acting range here to convince me of his role as a greaser. It's another nice reference here to the greaser subculture of the '50s, and I found this a lot more entertaining than I had thought. Shia pulled off the greaser role rather well, as he's not overly annoying like those generic greaser-punks you see in other movies. However, as the son of Indiana Jones, there's a certain dissonance here that made it kinda goofy for a greaser to be the descendant of the great adventurer. Usually, you would expect some hot-head John Wayne type to play that role, not a narcissistic greaser that lacks the charm and charisma. And even though Shia slips away from his usual stuttering annoying kid type-cast in other shows, his acting is still nothing to write home about. I could barely remember one iconic line or moment from him in the movie as he faded into the background. Despite fitting into the greaser role quite adequately, he didn't do anything unique with the role and merely served as one of those typical 'lost sons' characters as they reunited with their long-lost father and act all awkward when they see their father and mother kiss each other. Sigh. Speaking of the mother, Karen Allen's return as Marion Ravenwood was rather lackluster. She also didn't do anything special with the role and also tagged along for the ride as an inventory of Indiana, an empty, soulless caricature with no personality. This is not the Marion I remember. Not even one reference to her drinking? Nothing? Also, in Raiders, Marion managed to stand out by coming up with a creative way of getting out of trouble - by relying on the same liquor skills she was shown to have in her introduction (setups and payoffs kids, an important technique in storytelling). In Crystal Skull, she does something similar, but the way it's executed was so dumb it took me out of the moment - how the hell did she know that there's a tree-branch sticking out from the cliff? Chalk that up as the dumbest moment in Indiana history, more so than the lead-lined refrigerator (which I could at least imagine being made out of anti-nuclear material, since I don't know science). At least Ray Winstone has a slightly more interesting role as a double agent triple oh who gives a f***? The annoying heel-face turn and turn and turn was stupid and tedious to watch. He's certainly no Paul Freeman or Belloq who's ten times more interesting as an ambiguous villain than this schmuck. Not much to say about Cate Blend-chett as Irina; she's a poor man's version of Elsa. John Hurt as the quirky Ox was, again, "just okay". He's kinda fun, I guess, but I don't feel enough for the character like I did for Henry Sr. to care whether if he dies or not, which is what I could say for most of the cast. And finally, the ending to this film. Now, there were heated debates about whether if the science fiction twist of the movie worked with the rest of the franchise. While I agree that the sudden insertion of aliens among the religious undertones of other films felt kinda shoe-horned and out of place, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Like I wrote above, I like the throwback to classic science fiction adventures, and Indiana is an adventure story through and through. It's too bad the execution of the rest of this movie is so unspectacular, because it had potential for future Indiana movies, this time dealing with sci-fi relics rather than religious or mythological ones. To me, each time I watched the Indiana films for the past few days, it's like discovering a treasure of the past, and I would sit giddily like a kid expecting to uncover something amazing. I feel such a symbolism would work well as a theme for the franchise, with future Indiana films exploring adventure sub-genres of bygone days. Perhaps the possible films with Chris Pratt in the future will follow this route. Overall, Kingdom of the Muddled Skull was an unspectacular movie added to a spectacular franchise. 6/10 |
The Conversation  Directed, Produced, and Written By: Francis Ford Coppola Cinematography By: Bill Butler Edited By: Richard Chew and Walter Murch Starring: Gene Hackman as Harry Caul John Cazale as Stan Allen Garfield as William P. "Bernie" Moran Cindy Williams as Ann Frederic Forrest as Mark Harrison Ford as Martin Stett Michael Higgins as Paul Robert Duvall as The Director (uncredited) In 1974, this film was released two years after the Watergate Scandal. Due to the thematic similarities between the film and the incident, many would come to assume that the script was an intentional reflection of the surveillance Nixon used to spy on political opponents - Coppola denied this and stated that the script was completed in the '60s, before Nixon's election in fact. Nevertheless, the coincidence is a poetic statement of the strong relationship between life and art. The Conversation is masterfully-crafted from the very start. The film begins with a bird's eye view shot descending towards our protagonist, Henry Caul, who's quickly approached by a mime. Despite trying to rid himself of the man whose words he can't eavesdrop on, the silent stranger continued tailing him for a few more seconds before leaping away in joy. The film continues with the main story - the conversation between Mark and Ann. We get bits of distorted dialogues and nothing else, causing us to become as interested about what they are saying as Henry is - even if he denies it to Stan later on. The way Coppola puts us in Henry's shoes works effectively. We only learn as much as Henry does throughout the film and only learn the truth behind the conversation at the end of it. And even then, the 'truth' is muddled at best, and I found myself almost as surprised about Ann and Mark's survival as Henry did (though I did have my reservations about how brief the glimpse of the bloody person pushed against the glass was), questioning if Henry was imagining it all with his increasing paranoia. This is perspective-filmmaking at one of its finest. The film strikes a fine balance in its themes between paranoia, security, and surveillance. The movie is not so much about voyeurism as it is about mistrust and fear in a world where everyone can listen in on what you say - quite the relevant topic in modern society. Henry's increasing paranoia is evident throughout the film. He distrusts the people living in his household, his seclusion and obsession with privacy drive his mistress and his colleague away. Despite spying on everyone else and being hailed as some sort of master-spy by Bernie (even the salesman at the Surveillance Convention is pleasantly surprised upon hearing Henry's name), Henry Caul remains the one who's most insecure. Like a broken piece of a puzzle, Henry's attempt to fit into the world of surveillance with dispassion failed miserably (with Meredith pointing out the flaw in his line of thought), and that works perfectly fine for a character we step into the shoes of as we question the ethical nature of surveillance just as Henry did. It was very important for us to only be as informed about the plot points as Henry did so as to give that sense of paranoia over us, and Coppola did that quite spectacularly. The performances given by each actor and actress are as realistic as those you would find in Spike Jonze's "her", including the often impressive Gene Hackman, and they rightly should be. There's hardly a moment of exaggeration here, and because of that, we're able to be not distracted by some fantastical method acting and just focus on Henry like a real person. However, Harrison Ford is much-deserving of praise here, and the other reason I brought up "her" is because Chris Pratt, the actor most-considered to be a replacement of Ford's iconic role, didn't impress me before his rise to fame the way Ford did pre-Star Wars. Just look at how Harrison handles his role here. He takes a unique spin on it and gives enough emotional-nuance to make Martin Stett interesting as a character. That's the trait of a real actor. This did not happen with Pratt pre-Guardians/Jurassic World, who seemed to be satisfied with giving us that boyish and goofy smile. That's the trait of a movie star. The final 20 minutes of the film with the much-discussed about ending is a great punchline to the story. Personally, I agree with Roger Ebert in his review that the blood from the toilet was real and the quick cuts of the 'murder' that happened in the hotel room was imagined - you can't form a delusion effectively without an effective trigger, and I think seeing blood flooding out of the toilet would really send someone over the edge. The clever turn of events that changed Mark and Ann from victims to villains also serves as an ominous warning about forming your own interpretation without seeing the full picture, such as whether if Henry's landlord was indeed part of the scheme to spy on Henry when she left her birthday present. We can only replay the conversations in the movie in hopes of forming a clearer interpretation, but it will most likely remain a distorted one. 9/10 |
 Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola Screenplay By: Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola Music By: Nino Rota Cinematography By: Gordon Willis Puppet Strings By: Paramount Pictures Executive, Robert Evans Starring: Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone Al Pacino as Michael Corleone James Caan as Santino "Sonny" Corleone Richard S. Castellano as Peter Clemenza Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen Sterling Hayden as Captain Marc McCluskey John Marley as Jack Woltz Richard Conte as Emilio Barzini Diane Keaton as Kay Adams-Corleone "Masterpiece". It's a term often associated with movies like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and of course, The Godfather - none of which I personally enjoyed much. What makes a movie a masterpiece, exactly? Is it the numerous cinematographic choices Coppola had chosen but Gordon Willis was against? Is it the iconic characters, who are no more complex than Henry Caul in Coppola's follow-up film, The Conversation? Or is it the realistic depiction of the mafia culture of that time, one which many Asians like myself might not be able to relate to? Maybe, not that different from what Casino Royale would do in later decades, it's just a culmination of quality factors brought together that impressed people enough to grant it the label of 'masterpiece'; the right choice of actors, cinematographer, costume designer, set designer and writers. As Coppola so poetically said at the end of his commentary track: "I chose them." And he is poetic. Someday, I would look back at Coppola and remember him as "the accidental genius", the artist who skillfully used 'accidents' and coincidences to his advantage and craft some of the best works today. His next film, The Conversation, is a great example of that, utilizing the coincidence of Nixon's election as yet another great cultural reflection. Many times during the production of Godfather, his 'master-strokes' were the result of other people giving him fortunate advises. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but it did leave me... a little disillusioned. I don't think I would rank him that high up on the list anymore, especially not on the levels of Kubrick, or Scorsese for that matter. The same disillusionment came with my first viewing of the film a few years back. The problem with a film of such stature, any normal person would have extremely high expectations of it. I wasn't disillusioned the way I was disillusioned by how terrible Transformers really was, of course. I guess a better word for it would be... disheartened. The film wasn't disappointing to me - I was disappointing to myself. I couldn't appreciate the film back then, nor could I now. Surprisingly, I enjoyed 2001: A Space Odyssey a little bit more (and I mean literally 'a little bit' as that film was too confusing to be that enjoyable for me) than this film. Between 2001 and The Godfather, you would normally find the latter higher up on a respectable movie list like AFI than the former. That said. Following the larger than life action heroes of pre-Godfather gangster movies, Coppola made a film that redefined the mafia forever and made them even larger than "larger than life". Not only is it a cultural-phenomenon imitated and replicated for decades to come, The Godfather brought some very human and flawed characters to the mob-culture. The idea of the mafia acting as prestigious royal businessmen not that different from Shakespeare's Henry V is fascinating. Though the character-writing is not really revolutionary, the study of Michael Corleone's rise from a normal citizen like any of us into mafia-hood is not only intriguing, it serves as an important connection to normal everyday people like us. His descent to hell at the ending is subtle and almost unnoticeable; people might even be envious of his position had they not consider the fact that Michael sacrificed his own happiness and had to deceive his own wife in order to keep her around. And there are a lot of deceptions in this film. The typography of the film title itself is a nice symbolism of the 'Dons' being held on puppet strings. Stringed along in a rapidly changing world, the Corleone family begun to lose friends and family just as rapidly in the film. Vito's old ways no longer work, and it's up to Michael to tug on the strings attached to him in order to bring his family to the new age of mafia. And boy, did he tug. All five families dead in one shot as he manipulated their assassination in the background while confessing to Christ ol' Mighty that he renounced Satan. "I always thought that you would be the one to hold the strings." Perhaps Michael does - for now. But I believe it's due in credit to Michael taking things a little too personal with the death of the family heads that led him to whatever fates he's stringed along in the next two films. All this portrayal of Michael's rise to power was done relatively well, if a little diluted by the rather weak Sicily story-arc where Michael discovered his roots. Simonetta Stefanelli was not only very boring as Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone, her introduction to Michael lacked any kind of chemistry to make me believe that these two are falling in love with each other. And the notion that Michael would casually cheat on Kay to marry a girl he just met was... unrelatable. I mean, I could understand the concept somewhat, of why Michael felt compelled to marry a girl whose father his bodyguards might have offended (, but I don't really buy the 'love at first sight' excuse due to the aforementioned lack of chemistry. Most important of all, I feel that all that time used up for the portrayal of Michael and Appollonia could have instead be used to focus on some kind of transition that caused Michael to buy into his family's values and ideals. Sure, he's bitter about his father being attacked, and the death of Apollonia might have drove him over the edge and take charge of the family business, but did he believe in this mafia career or did he only want to get revenge? Perhaps he saw how important family values are when he saw the blissful nature of Appollonia's family and the life he had spent with her, but if so, then that's done so subtly I didn't know it was meant as a character development of Michael at all - I thought it was just 30 minutes of "Michael prancing around with some girl". Aside from that, I also felt that some of the scenes in the movie did dilute the overall message of the film a little bit, scenes that wouldn't affect the film's quality if they were only shortened with cuts by just a few seconds or a single minute, such as the dragged out marriage party that supposedly 'introduced all the characters'. I think they could have been portrayed under a more interesting light like Salvatore's introduction if Coppola wanted me to remember all these people. I found myself pausing quite a few times in the movie because the pacing of the movie was just so dragged out. It wasn't even anything special like the 'one long take' in Birdman; it was just a really long scene with ordinary point of view cuts (or at least, the pov from their shoulder-level) ruined by Coppola's insistence on bird's eye view cuts. I mean, really, Francis, you're not filming an action movie. Why do you need a bird's eye view? The perspective-cuts, in fact, work much better in Coppola's next film, The Conversation. After hearing from Francis himself that he's the one who insisted on those cuts, I can't unsee what I have seen. And speaking of moments in the movie I can't unsee, take a look at the scene where James Caan is punching out Gianni Russo as Carlo Rizzi - you'll notice that one of the punches didn't make contact with Gianni's face very easily. It totally took me out of the moment and reminded me that Coppola needed cinematography-tutorials from the man who ruined Star Wars, George Lucas himself. Sigh. Disappointing, Francis. Now this is disappointing, not disheartened. However, it's but a small gripe to still a relatively great film... just not as great as people hailed it (in my opinion, in case anyone in particular makes a discussion about stating opinions as facts, again ;D). But you know, I admire what Coppola has done, in all seriousness. Jokes aside, I still find Francis to be a great director daring to push the buttons of those grubby executives. I wasn't kidding about Evans being a puppeteer; he almost brought ruination to the movie and almost turned it into one of those generic mafia movies you'd see screening at your nearest cinema nowadays. Thank god for Coppola. It's yet another poetic coincidence that The Godfather manages to not be manipulated into something terrible and remains as one of the highest-acclaimed movies ever; if only more modern day filmmakers have the cojones to pull off such a feat. 8/10 |
OminousWrexJul 3, 2015 10:03 AM
| I re-watched Ghost in the Shell (1995) a few days ago for the first time in over a decade. I enjoyed it a lot more this time. It was much deeper and creepier than I remember it being. |
| Un Prophete brilliant story and great directing, final 30 minutes were amazing. the clothes of the characters reminded me of La Haine a lot. got myself a new favorite here. 9 |
| Lost in Translation! Such a great film! It has been on my "want-to-watch" list for so long, but I finally decided to watch it. I've been planning my solo trip to Japan this fall so it was a great reference. |
You can just be yourself. Do things your own way, one step at a time. You'll get there. Just be yourself, you'll be fine." ~Fruit Basket |
MrSideliner said: Contact. Pretty thought provoking film and the 90's version of Interstellar. Even stars Matthew McConaughey. i recently watched Contact too b'coz of Interstellar.. Thought provoking indeed. |
| Whiplash. Amazing film with an amazing end. I totally recommend it, guys. |
 |
| Victoria: A German movie about Victoria, a Spanish migrants who live in Berlin, and it follows her story from 5.42 am to 7.56 am when after a party, she met 4 drunk, a little bit scary but quite friendly Berliner guys. She decided on a whim to follow them and is led into one crazy early morning. This movie is quite an experience, it's shot in a single take, and not a fake one like in Birdman. Add to this, the natural dialog and the wonderful score from Nils Frahm and you get a really immersive movie to the point you're feeling you're really there with the actors. Fun moments, violence, poetry, suspence, this movie has a lot to offer, and I highly recommend it, it's a great ride. One Girl. One City. One Night. One Take. |
| The San Andreas film without the Rock, the REALLY bad one with cgi hippos. 0/10 |
| Unbroken, interesting biography. However many people were hyped about it so I had very high expectations for it. |
| A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night. The film is about a female vampire who kills guys who treat women like shit. It was done in black and white which is pretty cool since it was made in 2014. The cinematography was great, as well as the soundtrack. The film had a 50's vibe, but I'm not sure if it takes place then or if it's contemporary. Overall, it got 4/5 stars from me. |
 [/url] |
 10/10 What a fkn movie that was. Really makes you look at movies of today and see how much happy fluffy cotton candy people eat up from em. And this movies had no cliches, I saw so much Heavy Rain in this. |
| My Manga List My Anime List Shabada shabadabadaba I am DjG545 aka Dj Fo Fo aka The Mutha Fkn Name I'm Usin Now |
| Inside Out - 9.5/10 Easily the best thing Pixar has done since Toy Story 3, not just that but the best family film I've seen in a very long time. |
 |
| Terminator Genisys. Seen it in the movies with my friends about 2 weeks ago. It was good but damn they have some really complex dialogue that I kinda regret watching it in the cinema. This is why I prefer watching it in blu-ray with subtitles |
 |
| Avengers: Age of Ultron So Spider-Man 3 gets shit for having 3 villains (despite handling them well) and this show keeps throwing up new characters dividing each one's role to a single punch and that's fine? Or the fight that, yet again, we fight countless fodder in back-to-back circles with out heroes? This shit was gay in the 80s, gayer in the 90s, and keeps on getting gayer. Movies need to be less shitty with their action. Ultron's personality was interesting, his role was awful. Age of Ultron. AGE? Think of it like this: Remember that Hydra Nazi computer guy from Winter Soldier? That scene felt more like an "Age of Ultron" than this movie. Ultron just goes 5th Element, and learns about everything, then builds a better version of himself, then just goes for a generic plan of destruction. Just another "humans bad for earth, extinction ftw". And please STFU about "the execution", there was no execution. They did it as generically as possible. There was no time to even flesh it out and tweak it at all. 5/10. Another awfully disappointing Marvel movie, reminding us that this series is only held together by hype produced by good trailers and average post-credit scenes. And some overrated B-list actors. |
| End Zionazism |
| Focus with Will Smith aaaand I totally loved it. I would like a second movie thou' I don't know if this is possible. Anyway, one of the best I've seen lately. |
"Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become devils" Vicious. Cowboy Bebop |
| Kaze no Tani no Nausicaa, or Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. Honestly, it was a pretty great movie and would've been if not for those final few minutes. Seriously, this movie is a perfect example of how forcing a happy ending can ruin a movie (or a series, if that were to be the case). |
 |
| Ant Man -- I liked it. Paul Rudd made for a good lead. It was regularly funny. Overall it was a fun summer movie. |
Scooch said: Ant Man -- I liked it. Paul Rudd made for a good lead. It was regularly funny. Overall it was a fun summer movie. Same, watched it last night. Was fun, action packed, and gave us some more hype for Captain America Civil War. Pretty much flipped out (so did the rest of the theatre) when I heard Marvel's first reference to my dear boy Spidey in the MCU. Can't wait to see the web-crawler on the big screen (again!). |
| I watched Dirty Harry (1971) yesterday and absolutely loved it. I loved the casting and costume designs, the whole movie had me in the perfect 1960-70s vibe and SF was a great setting for the story. Harry Callahan is a new favorite of mine for sure, awesome revolver and Clint Eastwood did a great job. 8/10 |
| Justice League: Gods and Monsters. Really good Elseworld tale with very beautiful scenes and nice twists. Lots of ultra-violence though. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| Chinatown (1974) - 10/10 Polanski is a genius. |
 ten outta fuckin' ten |
| Re-watched Devotion of Suspect X (japanese film from the galileo jdorama.) last night.. Great movie, everyone should watch it. :) |
 |
| Need for Speed MC races. Race fucks up. MC desires payback. Rides badass new car. Race. Ride fucked up but still badass car. Race. Nothing special here. Only the cars. 4/10 movie 7/10 cars |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Big Hero 6 My friends and I just laughed about that scene where Baymax tries to fix his arm. It's exam period for me so don't have much time to watch anything. Planning a marathon of all Marvel movies in the recent decade once exam period is over, including Ant-Man and the up-coming Fantastic Four. (squeals) can't wait! |
 |
| V/H/S Pretty meh, the stories were entertainig but most of them didn't make sense at all. Of course they werent scary either. 5/10 - because theres a few gore scenes that I liked it and because I was able to finish it at least. |
 |
More topics from this board
» Currently listening to ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )tsukareru - Mar 29, 2021 |
7975 |
by chocomayu
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» What was the last song you listened to? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Death - Oct 1, 2020 |
3571 |
by Ricchan__
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Post songs that you are addicted to right now ( 1 2 3 )tsukareru - Apr 26 |
128 |
by bevarnow
»»
Yesterday, 5:12 PM |
|
» What's your favorite Japanese song currently?2KD-FTV - Sep 18, 2023 |
33 |
by bevarnow
»»
Yesterday, 5:07 PM |
|
» I don't know the name of a science fiction movie, can you help me please?Absurdo_N - Yesterday |
2 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
Yesterday, 3:16 PM |