CRASHER

The Movies thread!

1,071 posts in this topic

Boondock Saints has to be one of the most overrated movies ever. I agree with Bulletproof on the movies' flaws, but unfortunately I could not see its charm. It is beyond me why so many people seem to like it. No offense to those people of course.

By the way, this is the only movie thread now? No use posting in the other one right. Not that I had the time to watch movies lately, let alone comment about them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the characters that drive the love-despite-its-flaws that Boondock Saints fans have. Rocco and the Tourette's-suffering old guy who who owns the bar provide the goofy, funny, lovable moments. The brothers, well, they're brothers, and despire any acting shortcomings Flanery and Reedus may have, their bond is believable. But for me, Dafoe is the key. His inner conflict while dealing with trying to catch the McManus brothers while also admiring what they're doing and his self-loathing attitude towards homosexuals bring a depth of character that no one else in the film really has. Plus, his interactions with the Boston detectives brings some more comedic value.

The characters bring heart to the film while also helping it stay light-hearted. A lot of the movie is over the top ... the acting, the cinematography, turning Rocco into Jesus ... but if the characters weren't good enough to allow the viewer to emotionally invest in them, none of it would work.

That's my take, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the characters that drive the love-despite-its-flaws that Boondock Saints fans have. Rocco and the Tourette's-suffering old guy who who owns the bar provide the goofy, funny, lovable moments. The brothers, well, they're brothers, and despire any acting shortcomings Flanery and Reedus may have, their bond is believable. But for me, Dafoe is the key. His inner conflict while dealing with trying to catch the McManus brothers while also admiring what they're doing and his self-loathing attitude towards homosexuals bring a depth of character that no one else in the film really has. Plus, his interactions with the Boston detectives brings some more comedic value.

The characters bring heart to the film while also helping it stay light-hearted. A lot of the movie is over the top ... the acting, the cinematography, turning Rocco into Jesus ... but if the characters weren't good enough to allow the viewer to emotionally invest in them, none of it would work.

That's my take, anyway.

Very well said, DiG.

When it comes to the brothers, I totally agree. Flanery and Reedus have a great bond which, for me, is what pulls the movie up from so-so status. When watching it, I find myself really rooting for them, which is a feat all in itself. The brothers are the best part of the movie...the characters are well acted and they have great chemistry.

As for Willem Dafoe, I have to repectfully disagree. While there was nothing "wrong" with his performance, the director really needed to reign him in. To me, Dafoe really got caught up in the energy of that character and ended up over-acting, which can happen if you give a great actor free reign like that (much like Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood). The result is a character that has real depth and substance that gets overshadowed by the over the top performance. For the Dafoe character, which for me is essential as he really spells out the jist of the film, I would have liked to see a more focused portrayal. There's enough over the top stuff going on where Dafoe didn't need to hit the heights he did.

But, yeah, I still love that damn movie! Very interested to see how the sequel will hold up to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda liked the over-the-top performance, but I guess that's one of those "To each their own" kinda things. Every time he put his headphones on, I knew I was in for some downright cringe-worthy, unnecessary theatrics. But I still get chills every time I see the "THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!" part, as over-the-top as that entire scene may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw Funny People and I think it's a pretty good movie. It's a cleverly written drama about comedians with a lot of great jokes. The acting is simply superb. Adam Sandler is even better than he was in Punch Drunk Love. A skinny Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann and Jason Schwartzmann are as fine as ever. One thing I also noticed was how great this movie is shot for a comedy (by none other than Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski). However, its Lawrence of Arabia-like playing time, unnecessary second half (which was nowhere as good as the first and felt like an whole other movie) and lack of a satisfactory climax keep it from being as great as Apatow's previous directorial efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just because he did not pick the better movie it does not mean he did not do an excellent job in it

Funny People was probably my biggest disappointment this summer. Not horrendous but far from being good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random Movie I Just Watched

No Country For Old Men

Call me lazy, crazy or all of the above, but I have a terrible habit of watching Oscar winning movies 2 years too late. Maybe I just can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get the ending. I also didn't like that it felt like the big moment that the entire movie was building up to wasn't even shown. All you got was the build, the aftermath and a story about a dream. Everything else about the movie was superb, and maybe it's because the rest of the movie was so good that what I previously mentioned left me feeling so unsatisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get the ending. I also didn't like that it felt like the big moment that the entire movie was building up to wasn't even shown. All you got was the build, the aftermath and a story about a dream. Everything else about the movie was superb, and maybe it's because the rest of the movie was so good that what I previously mentioned left me feeling so unsatisfied.

In re-reading my review, I didn't want to come off as condesending when I said, "the ending could leave viewers who missed the subtexts a little cold". In all honesty, I kinda sort of get the ending but not enough talk intelligently about it. The ending is actually one of the main reasons I want to see it again...I feel like I missed something and I really want to figure it out so the movie comes full circle. I guess my reaction was different from yours in that the ending didn't leave me flat because, for me, the movie had truly ended 20 minutes beforehand. Everything else was interesting aftermath.

As for the "main event" not being shown, I really didn't mind that. For me, the whole film, at the risk of sounding to much like a critic, was a well seasoned reciepe...a pinch of humor, a dash of violence all whipped up into a perfectly balanced concoction. Having the "main event" shown might have tipped the balance too much, so it's omision was fine with me. Besides, the violence was already well established by then...

...we all know what that scilenced shotgun would have done to Llewelyn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't come off as condescending ... sorry if I made it sound like I thought you did. I just wasn't a big fan of the flick. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks, I guess. I remember being all pumped last summer for "No Country..." as well as "There Will Be Blood" since they both looked badass. Both movies disappointed me, but it could fully be because they both went over my head. Wouldn't surprise me.

For my money, the milkshake scene was the best part of either flick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't come off as condescending ... sorry if I made it sound like I thought you did. I just wasn't a big fan of the flick. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks, I guess. I remember being all pumped last summer for "No Country..." as well as "There Will Be Blood" since they both looked badass. Both movies disappointed me, but it could fully be because they both went over my head. Wouldn't surprise me.

For my money, the milkshake scene was the best part of either flick.

Ha...I had to think for a second about what scene you were referring to, but I agree, that was pretty awesome. There Will Be Blood left me colder than Old Country, for two reasons.

1) Daniel Day Lewis was grossly overacting the part, surprising considering how good PT Anderson is with high profile actors. Sure, I know that's his thing, but he really needed a director to say, "OK...that was good but lets pull it back a tad". Given how quiet the movie was, maybe that high octane performance was needed to give the film some life, but it could have been done in other ways.

2) The main character had no arc. For me, one of the interesting things about watching movies is seeing how a character changes over the course of the film...every great story has some sort of character arc. Now, one could make the argument that the world around Daniel Plainview is the arc, while he stays the same person, but it just rings hollow to me. The only time when he even softens is when his "brother" comes in to this life, but that's short lived.

Those gripes are minor though as I really enjoyed both movies. Both films were beautifully shot and directed. It's funny, but 2007 was almost the year of the "quiet movie" with those two getting most of the headlines. The other notable movies from that year were Juno (which I loved), Michael Clayton (also loved) and Atonement (didn't see). As a side note, I'm amazed that Sweeny Todd was up for so much...that movie was freaking miserable, a shame considering the play is regarded as one of the best musicals Stephen Sondheim has ever done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny, but 2007 was almost the year of the "quiet movie" with those two getting most of the headlines. The other notable movies from that year were Juno (which I loved), Michael Clayton (also loved) and Atonement (didn't see). As a side note, I'm amazed that Sweeny Todd was up for so much...that movie was freaking miserable, a shame considering the play is regarded as one of the best musicals Stephen Sondheim has ever done.

Well, I kind of liked Sweeney Todd, but I don't remember it was up for so much awards... only for Depp and one or two minor categories. As for Juno and Atonement, they are great movies but a little bit overrated. Especially when you consider that The Assassionation of Jesse James, Eastern Promises and Zodiac were all released in the same year. Yeah, 2007 was a good year for movies. Hopefully this year will have a couple of hidden gems too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I kind of liked Sweeney Todd, but I don't remember it was up for so much awards... only for Depp and one or two minor categories. As for Juno and Atonement, they are great movies but a little bit overrated. Especially when you consider that The Assassionation of Jesse James, Eastern Promises and Zodiac were all released in the same year. Yeah, 2007 was a good year for movies. Hopefully this year will have a couple of hidden gems too.

Never got a chance to see The Assasination of Jesse James, although I hear it was really good. Not sure about Casey Affleck but he had a pretty good year with Gone Baby Gone getting a nomination and his nomination for James, so I'll have to give it a shot. As for Affleck, I can't look at him without being reminded of Good Will Hunting, so I'll just have to get over it.

By the way, DiG, I finally saw 3:10 to Yuma on Saturday and it was a good flick. Both Bale and Crowe played realistic and enjoyable characters, although I thought the first third of the movie played a little too slow for my tastes. That being said, the final third of the movie was excellent. To me, it was one of those movies that really picked up steam as it went along...all in all, it was a fun ride and I'd definately pick it up if it was on sale somewhere. This is part of my "Getting To Know Christian Bale" movie series, so next up will be American Pyscho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, DiG, I finally saw 3:10 to Yuma on Saturday and it was a good flick. Both Bale and Crowe played realistic and enjoyable characters, although I thought the first third of the movie played a little too slow for my tastes. That being said, the final third of the movie was excellent. To me, it was one of those movies that really picked up steam as it went along...all in all, it was a fun ride and I'd definately pick it up if it was on sale somewhere. This is part of my "Getting To Know Christian Bale" movie series, so next up will be American Pyscho.

haha "Getting To Know Christian Bale." I'm smelling a DVD box set with American Psycho, The Machinist and 3:10 To Yuma.

Yeah, Bale and Crowe are pretty good in 3:10. It was a better movie than I expected. Glad you enjoyed it. Something tells me you're gonna enjoy the hell out of American Psycho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did anyone else see the Informant??

I didn't like it much except for MATT DAMON!!... his character had so many WTF moments that were hilarious... his randomness throughout the movie reminded me of Bale in American Psycho except he was just STUPID not psychotic :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did anyone else see the Informant??

I didn't like it much except for MATT DAMON!!... his character had so many WTF moments that were hilarious... his randomness throughout the movie reminded me of Bale in American Psycho except he was just STUPID not psychotic :P

Speaking of American Psycho...

Movie I Randomly Watched For The First Time

American Psycho

Film number 2 in my

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think American Psycho needs any spoiler tags since it's so old.

I think the ending is good in the movie. The apartment being sparkly and the realtor seeming to know why Bateman is there leads me to believe that society is protecting Bateman without the movie beating me over the head with it. The lawyer, though, leaves open the question if Bateman is just making it all up. I think most of the stuff at the end suggest he isn't but there is that slight question of if he is. Either way society won't let him admit his crimes, real or fake, and we're left with pity for a possible murderer who doesn't even know what is going on in his own life. Is he the perfect person he portrays who believes he's a killer and can't get help or is he a killer who can't get punished and has to live with his guilt? Both are awful scenarios for different reasons. The movie doesn't force you into one choice or the other but lets you think about both, which I like.

My belief is that Bateman is being protected by society but I think you can justify believing Bateman is nutty and made it all up. Like in real life, we'll never know for sure, we can just do the best we can with what we know.

I like the I <3 Huckabees ending for similar reasons, although Huckabees ending is less vague, it allows you to believe what you want about the past motivation and actions of characters and imagine different paths they may follow in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always went with the "Bateman is crazy and doesn't even realize he's making it all up" theory, but I like your alternative too. To me, one definition of art is something that is pleasing to the senses while also being open to interpretation. A movie like this that is fun to watch but can also lead to full discussions about different ways it can be interpreted is about as good as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair points, both. I just felt that the movie isn't really set up to be that ambiguous at the end. Maybe I was thrown out of the movie too much but it felt like more of a mistake in direction than a purposeful twist.

I also agree with 731's interpretation in that Bateman actually committed the crimes but is now forced to live with them without ever having a chance to clear his conscience. That being said, there are plently of references in the film that would support DiG's take that the crimes are all in his head. One that sticks out in my mind is when Bateman is dragging Allen, in a large bag, through the lobby of his building and the watchman doesn't even notice, despite leaving a trail of blood behind him. Another moment is the shootout with the cops where he blows up the car. As a matter of fact, every killing or moment has elemnets of it that don't seem "real". The ending with the lawyer also supports that but I still lean towards 731's take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how fake and over the top the shootout with the cops and the chopper coming in and stuff is. :lol: That part is great.

Of course the ATM going "feed me a stray cat" also leans towards Bateman is nuts...then he could be nuts and be killing as well so you can pick a middle ground as well as the extremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how fake and over the top the shootout with the cops and the chopper coming in and stuff is. :lol: That part is great.

Of course the ATM going "feed me a stray cat" also leans towards Bateman is nuts...then he could be nuts and be killing as well so you can pick a middle ground as well as the extremes.

I kinda felt I was watching me get a 5 Star Wanted level in GTA watching that :lol:

The more I think about it the more I think all the killing was in his head......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how fake and over the top the shootout with the cops and the chopper coming in and stuff is. :lol: That part is great.

Of course the ATM going "feed me a stray cat" also leans towards Bateman is nuts...then he could be nuts and be killing as well so you can pick a middle ground as well as the extremes.

I think there's no doubt the man is bat-sh!t crazy, but I really think he actually comitted the crimes. The toughest scene for me is the "clean apartment" scene. When Bateman walks in expecting a holy mess and finds the place white washed, furniture gone and a realtor tryign to sell the place, she calmly tells him "he should leave". Now, if he did the crimes and they had to clean the place up to re-sell it, that would make sense. The realtor doesn't want a problem, realizes he's the nut job who did all these crimes and just wants him to leave so she doesn't become the next one.

On the other hand, if the crimes are in his head, the place could have been empty the whole time. I still lean towards the fact he did it because it supports the overall mood of society being, "meh, who cares" about life in general. Every character in the film is flippant with their own lives, so it would make sense for the realtor have a sense of self preservation and say, "You know what, why don't you just leave" instead of making a fuss and risking her own neck. For me, the most powerful theme of the film is how everyone around them is so self absorbed, they can't see the psychopath sitting across from them. To me, it's more powerful than "he was dreaming it up the whole time!" as that seems more gimmicky to me. Yes, it would be an awesome twist but I think the point of the film suggests that he actually committed the crimes.

My two cents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now