Achilles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,972
I mean, you have to have at least one phallic reference in every movie.
Do you realize what you're implying?
Laxu did just connect Paul to Jesus.......
I mean, you have to have at least one phallic reference in every movie.
I feel like I’ve seen this before…Considering the book is from 1965, it's probably more like:
Harkonnen = Space Russia
Atreides = Space USA
Giant worms = I have no idea either!
But basically it's a story about Paul's journey to become Space Jesus.
I feel like I’ve seen this before…
Great recommendation. Almost finished. Perciate it!Knox Goes Away. Crime flick directed by Michael Keaton about a career criminal who is suffering from dementia. Awesome and semi-understated in the best of ways. Keaton is great. Give it a watch \m/
Glad you dig it. I love crime flicks. Really in all sub-forms. Whether they are big dumb exploding things or small quiet dramas with a crime undercurrent. Michael Keaton has always been one of my faves so even if the movie sucked; his presence would still make it enjoyable.Great recommendation. Almost finished. Perciate it!
Btw, I dig these types of movies, so if ya got any more, lay em on me!
Even though I have major problems with Dune Part One, we finally watched Dune Part Two last night. Man, that sound mixing was exhausting. I felt like they needed subtly to make it so less of the film was not the loudest thing you've ever experienced.
I think Javier Bardem is one of the great modern actors, but my wife pointed out his character became far less interesting in part two because he's reduced to a less dimensional religious zealot. He still has great character though, and I loved that.
The main kid, Timothée Chalamet, was far less annoying in Part Two, and he emoted mildly more. He did have the creepy messiah idea pretty well developed, but I just don't feel anything from this guy. He mostly oscillates between empty and angry, without all the weight of the universe you should see in that character's face. He just feels way to much of a real life caricature of the worst kind of prep school kid. And he has a tendency to overact. Of course the director is going to do a thing to rope him in, since this director seems not to talk to his actors at all.
Rebecca Ferguson was better in her creepiness in part two than her constant nervous breakdown in part one, but equally uncompelling.
I loved Léa Seydoux so much. I wish her character had more to do, because I always think she's a great actor.
Zendaya is ridiculous for giving herself one name to go by. I don't care who you are, that is just obnoxious. My wife had a good point that she played the role like a tough kid in a gangland movie, but her performance clashed too hard with the quiet and thoughtful nature of the way the Fremen were portrayed. She was just a tough angry kid, but not much else going on. She should have had more of the feel of Babs Olusanmokun, who played his short role with depth, character, tremendous dignity, and ferocity. I could feel it when he spoke, but I just didn't feel much from her. I did feel like she tried somewhat, but I just think maybe she needed a better director.
I can't help but compare the main character's drinking of the Water of Life in Lynch's to this one. In Lynch's version, it's the most epic thing ever, and in this it was not that big of a deal, even though, according to its own mythology, it's supposed to be the most significant event ever. Ugh.
I loved how deep they went into the story though. Getting further into the relationship between mythology and material gain was fantastic.
Finally, the villians:
Stellan Skarsgaard is kind of a self important ass in a lot of films. He thinks he's way cooler than he actually is. But here, in Part One and Part Two, he's fucking incredible! This made me love him instantly. Filled with character and personality. Just perfect, everything I want to see in an actor.
David Bautista played his role like a big angry dumb oaf, and his oscillation between nervously looking around and shouting at full volume was just bullshit. I don't care if you're character is dumb; you can make your performance more interesting than that.
Lastly, Austin Butler was fucking terrific. I loved his portrayal. His accent seemed like something he'd have to work hard as shit to accomplish, because he was largely mirroring Skarsgaard's weird and relaxed Swedish accent. It was great. The pure menace behind malevolent intellect was great to behold, in the way you just had to marvel at the psychological architecture he created for his character. I saw Elvis and thought it was fine, but it didn't really give me hope that this guy is special, but I was wrong. This movie proves that he's a worker, and that's one of the great things I love to see in actors. Stuff that's not native to who they are as people, but characters they work hard to create.
Overall, Denis Villenueve should be a cinematographer, not a director. Great visual sense, but lousy with people.
I am turning more and more into a French Postmodern Philosopher in my old age. The greater the spectacle the
less the substance.
Almost feels like a universal truth at this point, and Postmodernists, as you know, despise universal truths.
Wow, how can you hate on Shannon Whirry like that?You're reminding me of a pattern my wife and I have found in films: if you see tits in the first ten minutes, the film is going to suck. It's always a gimmick by a hack director to get you interested in the movie when the writing, directing, and acting have nothing else to offer. Tits later on in a film are hit or miss, but usually still a bad sign; they rarely have to do with a story, and if they do, it's often bad writing haha.
Now, I enjoy tits as much as the next guy, but in the context of movies, they're usually just a distraction.
I'm watching Tango and Cash. Within 8 minutes, there are nude boobs. I think your deduction does not hold true. Sorry.You're reminding me of a pattern my wife and I have found in films: if you see tits in the first ten minutes, the film is going to suck. It's always a gimmick by a hack director to get you interested in the movie when the writing, directing, and acting have nothing else to offer. Tits later on in a film are hit or miss, but usually still a bad sign; they rarely have to do with a story, and if they do, it's often bad writing haha.
Now, I enjoy tits as much as the next guy, but in the context of movies, they're usually just a distraction.
I'm watching Tango and Cash. Within 8 minutes, there are nude boobs. I think your deduction does not hold true. Sorry.
I think it's an awesome film. I think Stallone is more hit than miss compared to Schwarzenegger, who has released a ton of awful junk.Never saw that one, but it's on my list to get to one day. To me, Stallone made a lot of bad movies after the mid 80s (with the very notable exception of Copland), so I'm curious to see if I'll agree with you or not!
Nude boobs don't need a reason to exist and calling them gratuitous or insinuating they ruin a film is a weird take. They are boobs and a nice bonus to look at.Copland and Nighthawks get Stallone a pass for life. Ignoring other obvious films that put him in spot he's in. The excess nudity trick has 1000% moved over to TV series. There are certainly times where sex makes sense in a story but just shoehorning the shit in there to get eyes on your show is lazy with a capital L.
I don't think they ruin a film. But I do think sex as a plot device as a whole is lazy as fuck as they are used in most modern tv series'.Nude boobs don't need a reason to exist and calling them gratuitous or insinuating they ruin a film is a weird take. They are boobs and a nice bonus to look at.