|
bam thwok posted:I should've just gone to see Saving Mr. Banks. My new goal in this thread is to post correct opinions repeatedly and force you to make enough posts that you run out of currently-in-theaters films to do this with. Once you've exhausted all current wide releases to see instead, you will be forced to admit you are wrong about American Hustle.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
The Rembrandt speech struck me as an apology for Russel aping Scorsese. This movie was kind of funny but insubstantial and forgettable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:The Rembrandt speech struck me as an apology for Russel aping Scorsese. This movie was kind of funny but insubstantial and forgettable. Yeah, I agree with this assessment. I don't know if this sounds right, but I felt like Russel at the last minute tried to shoehorn in a moral to the story, but did an insufficient job building up to it. Not since that Jared Leto MDC movie has an actor wrecked his body for such a weak film. Bulgaroktonos fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
I saw American Hustle last Friday and it really didn't have as much of an effect on me as I'd hoped it would. I was looking forward to it for quite some time, and I liked the movie, but I couldn't find it in me to love it, and even now I still can't. It had a lot going for it, but yeah, I guess "insubstantial" would be a good word to use for it. It's like there was a key component missing from this equation that kept it from being something great. I don't even know if it'll make my list of films I enjoyed most from 2013, honestly, especially when stuff like The Wolf Of Wall Street came out this year. I saw that movie yesterday afternoon and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since, whereas I haven't thought about American Hustle much at all since I left the theater after seeing it a week ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
I felt like this film needed to be both tighter and have more down-time. The whole thing sorta rushed by, and it all played out so high-octane that after a while it was hard not to just check out and wait for it to be over. It has the manic pacing of Goodfellas (with a handful of unearned Scorsese-esque interludes) and the purposeful confusion of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but I feel like it lacks the grace of either. There were several gripping scenes and arcs and so on (the Goodbye Yellow Brick Road New Jersey dinner thing where they're all entering through the smoke was probably the emotional high for me) but it was so jammed together that none of it ever carried over. On the other hand, the performances were phenomenal, particularly the unrecognizable Christian Bale, and might be the best reason to see this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:My new goal in this thread is to post correct opinions repeatedly and force you to make enough posts that you run out of currently-in-theaters films to do this with. Once you've exhausted all current wide releases to see instead, you will be forced to admit you are wrong about American Hustle. Something something, Hunger Games
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
origami posted:I like looking at Amy Adams. Synonamess Botch posted:I want to shake the hand of the costume designer, for similar reasons I'm not saying that you guys did this, but I want to nip this in the bud before it happens: DO NOT GET CREEPY ABOUT AMY ADAMS AND HER WARDROBE IN THIS THREAD Crossposting from Gen Chat: A non-douchey way to do this, would be to talk about how bizarre and cool the costume design is in American Hustle. Because Adams does look fantastic in the movie, and her wardrobe is really interesting character-wise. The character who conceals the most wears the outfits which conceal the least. Moreover, we're shown her actively choosing to wear these outfits, which probably says something about her character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
I totally jerked it to this movie. edit: it seems obvious in retrospect but I love that moment where they're making out in the swirling rack of laundromat clothes, lost in costumes, and then later he goes back and mopes around in the same spot by himself. Layers of artifice. Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
I'm surprised that the scene where Bale gets his wig situated hasn't given me nightmares yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I totally jerked it to this movie. DON'T TEST ME, HATE BALL!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Side note, it's pretty funny that a big part of this movie is Bradley Cooper trying to gently caress over a guy who's trying to help Camden, NJ. Being from Philadelphia in real life, Bradley Cooper has to be very aware of what a horrible hellhole Camden is today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
I read something really accurate in FilmDrunk's review:quote:The crazy thing is that it feels like Lawrence’s part was written for someone 10 years older, but she acts the poo poo out of it so hard that you just sit back in awe of her. which is another thing I wondered about after SLP. Like, she's obviously not married with a kid from a previous relationship at 23 here, even more so when you remember Bale is 16 years older than she is, but it's incredible how well she handles it. Also, I thought the cinematography when they're walking into "Studio 54" was really cool, with the lights flashing, and it seemed like Cooper was gliding across the floor, and then like ten seconds into it I wondered if I was having a seizure and I was like, "hmm, maybe this is a bit too much." e: Vargo posted:Side note, it's pretty funny that a big part of this movie is Bradley Cooper trying to gently caress over a guy who's trying to help Camden, NJ. Being from Philadelphia in real life, Bradley Cooper has to be very aware of what a horrible hellhole Camden is today. Errichetti (who Polito was based on, and was far more of a criminal than Polito was shown to be) wasn't even the last corrupt Camden mayor! Arnold Webster ('93-'97) and Milton Milan, who replaced Webster until '00, were both convicted, along with Senator Wayne Bryant ('95-'08), who represented Camden's district and was "the king of double-dipping." Jesus christ, horrible hellhole is an understatement! uublog fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Side note, it's pretty funny that a big part of this movie is Bradley Cooper trying to gently caress over a guy who's trying to help Camden, NJ. Being from Philadelphia in real life, Bradley Cooper has to be very aware of what a horrible hellhole Camden is today. This is the core of the film. The FBI hustled the American people into thinking they were doing their job when really it's all about personal career moves and/or fame. The ever ballooning cost of the investigation is juxtaposed again and again with the dire spot Camden and NJ at large are in. uublog posted:Errichetti (who Polito was based on, and was far more of a criminal than Polito was shown to be) wasn't even the last corrupt Camden mayor! Arnold Webster ('93-'97) and Milton Milan, who replaced Webster until '00, were both convicted, along with Senator Wayne Bryant ('95-'08), who represented Camden's district and was "the king of double-dipping." Jesus christ, horrible hellhole is an understatement! Dusseldorf posted:What do you mean by this? I understand the movie was stylized to look like a faux hyper-70's. I didn't like that. The film makes it very clear that this isn't a literal depiction of the events of ABSCAM for that reason exactly. Polito's practically a saint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Side note, it's pretty funny that a big part of this movie is Bradley Cooper trying to gently caress over a guy who's trying to help Camden, NJ. Being from Philadelphia in real life, Bradley Cooper has to be very aware of what a horrible hellhole Camden is today. I actually live in the small town outside Philly that he's from. Sometimes he comes back to visit and people run into him at the gym. Also, Camden really is a giant pile of poo poo that people live in. EDIT: Figure I should actually talk about the movie since I'm in this topic. I really enjoyed it, but then again Scorsese is my favorite director so a movie aping his style usually gets some points from me. I've enjoyed Russell's work ever since my parents showed me Three Kings so I always look forward to his movies no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat he is known to be to his crew. Dangerous Person fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:Totally opposite opinion here. I couldn't tell if the problem was because of source material (I.e. Adhering to a specific take on a work itself loosely based on real events) but this was a mess somehow of both plot holes and contrivances. Great performances, excellent costume design/production, but otherwise a huge let down. I share this apparently very minority opinion of this film, and I'll also add that I thought Amy Adams' performance was woeful. Her character is a tedious and neurotic spiv whose ruin I found myself craving the whole movie through. Jennifer Lawrence's character, who was clearly supposed to be the actual 'crazy' one, was far more interesting and relatable. There's a good reason why Irving's narration in the first 30 minutes calls Sydney a genius at least a half a dozen times; it was because Adams looked anything but. She looks like she's in the throes of some sort of fugue state, utterly disconnected from the reality around her. I swear, Amy Adams must have one of the smallest expressive ranges among A-list actors and I can't understand why she keeps getting cast in poo poo. I have never seen her play a character that I wasn't dying to see fail. That could be because she happens to play characters I just hate for some reason, but I think she's terrible anyway. She's so utterly outshone by Jennifer Lawrence in this its ludicrous to me that anybody is praising her work at all. Christian Bale I usually don't think particularly highly of, but he nails his character here. I wouldn't put it up as one of the greatest performances ever, but it's well beyond competent. Lawrence, as I've hinted at, absolutely kills it. Woman can play anything. She's someone everybody's watching for a drat good reason. Bradley Cooper is Bradley Cooper. Yeah, okay. The key problem I have with the film plot-wise is that the characters are not rational actors in relation to their circumstances. That's not in itself a problem at all. Arguably, if characters were always rational, there wouldn't be a story at all. But the issue becomes a dire one when the characters' irrationality is impenetrable to the audience. When they're not making good choices, and you can't figure out their reasoning in making bad choices, they don't come across as flawed and complex characters. They just seem like idiots. And that's how the players in this movie seemed to me. I wasn't rooting for any of them. It's only Rosalyn's madness that was in any way relatable or endearing. Irving came close, but then everything he does comes back to his infatuation with Sydney in the end and I'm just like "gently caress, what?" and he loses all credibility in my eyes. See this film, but see it because it's one of those films that's dead-set to be considered an Extremely Important Film and you're just isolating yourself from a major piece of popular culture if you don't. I didn't think it was very good, but my reaction to it is only prompted by the unending praise it's receiving. It's a perfectly watchable film, but that's about it in my opinion. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
I don't understand how you can say that people aren't being rational actors in the film. Everybody had a consistent motivation and they each had an angle they were trying to work. Sure, they did a lot of stupid things, but it all makes a lot of sense in the end. Cooper's character didn't care about justice or anything like that. He cared about becoming a big shot who showed everyone that he knew what he was doing. But of course, that constant need to turn this into something bigger and better for him brings down the operation because he gets into territory he's not prepared to go into, and when things didn't blow up, he thinks he's running a good ship. And so he starts to get sloppy because he's lucky. It leads him to do stupid things. Think about that scene with the lawyer's office. This guy is supposably a mob lawyer and he goes and explicitly says "We'll help you launder money." Anyone with half a brain would say "That's pretty brazen," but the FBI agent is so excited to be taking down a big mob guy that he doesn't think things through. As for his infatuation with Sydney, she's an exciting woman. As for Irving, he's doing this to cover his own rear end. He thinks the whole thing's stupid, but he has a son he's dedicated to. He's frustrated by the FBI because they keep running the show ineptly even though he's supposed to be the mastermind. He has a guy to play the Sheik, he knows all about the cons. They keep going bigger and better. He was in it for his 4 busts and then to walk away with freedom. He's like Lando in the Empire Strikes Back: he made a deal he had to make, but as it keeps getting worse and worse, he realizes that he didn't make a deal at all. So he uses their eagerness against them. I could go on, but I think that demonstrates how two of the characters are thinking throughout the movie. Yeah, they do bad and stupid things, but that's what a lot of people do in real life. Irving's no saint, but he's at least trying to do something that approximates the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
I find it interesting how many people think the film makers were imitating Scorsese when I felt that they were far more trying to ape the Coen brothers. The tone of the movie rarely delves into the "real and serious" nature that Scorsese imbues to his films and skirts the line with tongue in cheek scenes and relationships that are borderline insane such as Dimaso and his boss and also his courting of Sydney. Theres probably a lot of both Scorsese and the Coens in here both actually.. just neither have been imitated that well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I don't know why critics are fawning over this movie so much. Metacritic has American Hustle at 90 while Wolf of Wall Street is at 75 and even SA's own current releases mirrors that sentiment. I saw both movies within about 5 days of each other and Wolf was MUCH more entertaining. Hustle seemed to drag on and on with little happening while the three hour run time of Wolf went by in a flash. Looking back, I can't wait for Wolf to come out on DVD so I can watch it again while I have no urge to re-watch Hustle at all. Maybe it's an unfair comparison but I went into both films expect the same thing: a funny crime saga full of sex, drugs and money. Maybe it's that expectation that was the problem. Hustle is more of a romantic dramedy (oh poo poo did I really just use that word?). There's a bit money, more sexuality than sex and pretty much no drugs. The whole crime element takes a back seat to relationships and it's more witty than funny. I was hoping for more interesting scenes but I ended up with a lot of talking that seemed to go nowhere. For a movie that involves con men working with the FBI to take down politicians, the hiccups in the main character's plans felt inconsequential and the big twist at the end was pretty small and cheap. A lot more could have been done with the plot but I felt like that was all scrapped for zany, improved dialogue. Said dialogue was definitely good but not so amazing that you could hang an entire movie on it. Pulp Fiction, a film with some of best dialogue I've ever heard still had to have a bunch of interesting stuff happen to make it all work. There was some stuff I liked of course. Jennifer Lawrence was awesome as an evil bitch and any scene with Louis CK was hilarious. That's about it though. Also, did anyone else notice the insane amount of cleavage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
For the record, Current Releases has four writers. If I had written both reviews, Wolf would have come out ahead. Like I said early in the review, though, I just really like David O. Russell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
The "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.... bullshit" line of dialogue was horrible and was delivered horribly.Illavick posted:I don't know why critics are fawning over this movie so much. I think it was a nice easy listening movie and good for the holiday season. It wasn't very challenging and had a bunch of flaws but I think it went down pretty smoothly. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
I gotta agree with Smudgie Buggler here - Amy Adams' incredibly weak performance really torpedoed the film. She is, theoretically, the lynchpin of the film, being the motivating factor for all the major character development. But where we absolutely needed chemistry - the scene where she and Irving meet for the first time - felt like nothing at all. That should have been the emotional core of the film, and really had to in order to give a poo poo about the narrative at all (and for the weird fight between her and Rosalyn to not feel really confusing) As it stood, you had this basically passionless relationship between Sydney and Irving. That was supposed to be what was "real" in order for the film to have any coherency, but as it stood none of the layers felt more real than any of the others. Sydney revealing her real name to DiMasso didn't feel like anything, there was no sense that this was actually a relief. Everything in the film felt fake because of it, so none of the characters' decisions really had any gravity - you were just waiting to see where the story ended up, so at the end it's like, oh, that's it? Irving could have ended up with either Rosalyn or Sydney and it didn't really seem like it mattered to anyone which he chose (regardless of what the dialogue intends to establish). The chemistry that Polito and Irving were supposed to have barely came off, as well. When the voiceover came, I asked - they were friends? Irving seemed like a popular guy! Why would he bond with this mark as opposed to all the others, and what about all of his friends that he trusts enough to run cons with? And the screaming fit that everyone has in the Polito household felt weirdly timed, like everyone was taking cues from one another, especially when his wife just started yelling for no reason. I guess they were all idiots. I can't think of a single memorable scene from this movie. It was just a series of developments that didn't seem to emotionally matter to any of the characters leading to an outcome that everyone basically accepted without much resistance or passion... also odd that the only character who actually came off as competent/clever (DeNiro) was the bad guy. At the end of the day, seven extremely corrupt public officials were arrested... is that supposed to be a more disappointing outcome than bagging one eighty year old? I'll admit this isn't a very interesting post I just made but in reality I don't even have enough feelings on the movie to create something interesting. It was just mush. Terrible chemistry, which does not work for this sort of film... Also, bam thwok, great post. Jonny Angel posted:DiMaso is the character that most actively does this boxing-in, though Rosalyn deserves an honorable mention when she talks about her new boyfriend as being so sweet and dedicated, willfully ignoring the fact that he's an obvious mobster and obviously partially using her to get information on the true nature of the Sheikh's proposal. But DiMaso's the motherlode. He wants to hear the ending of Thorsen's story badly enough that he keeps asking him about it, but not badly enough that he ever lets him finish it, because DiMaso feels confident enough to extrapolate the ending and moral after a few details. He wants to put Polito in the box of "dangerous, scheming, corrupt official" (and so does the camera, at points! See my first post in this thread, talking about the trunk shot) so he focuses on Polito as a big get even as our perspective increasingly aligns with Rosenfeld's, that Polito is largely a sympathetic and idealistic victim in all of this. And then there's his ultimate fate, wherein his insistence on seeing the "mob lawyer" as exactly that, his insistence on believing something too good to be true, is what causes him to overreach hugely and get zero credit for the operation. This is Rosenfeld taking the role of the forger in the allegory: he knows what DiMaso wants to believe, he gives it to DiMaso, and he profits off it. By this analysis, American Hustle is making the statement that people make mistakes when they have an inaccurate understanding of a situation. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Yes I agree that this piece of art is illustrating examples of a widespread psychological phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:Yes I agree that this piece of art is illustrating examples of a widespread psychological phenomenon. No Wave fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I felt like this film needed to be both tighter and have more down-time. The whole thing sorta rushed by, and it all played out so high-octane that after a while it was hard not to just check out and wait for it to be over. I agree with this completely. I enjoyed the film and thought the performances (especially Bale, like you said) were mostly fantastic but it was such a loose film. I usually don't mind a bit of an odd structure but David O. Russell always works best in a straight line, rather than a zig-zagging one and as such the movie didn't suit him. He didn't allow certain scenes to breathe enough and settle, but he also let others drag a bit too much. In the end it all felt a little inconsequential and didn't earn the runtime it had in that sense. I thought Adams (who is usually quite good) wasn't great which made her very important character stick out a bit compared to the rest of the cast who knocked it out of the park. To be honest I felt like Rosalyn was a more likable character, despite being a user, manipulator and a bit of a nutter at times. She was just far more interesting and I never totally bought Sydney and Irving's relationship; I feel like her with Cooper's character had more impact. I do realise that it isn't her fault entirely, but she didn't convey what she did have to work with especially well. I'm a bit torn on the movie because I loved a lot of things about it but I also felt like there was a lot of wasted potential. It's still worth a watch but it's not at the level of Russell's other recent work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
I'm astonished that people are sympathizing Rosalyn. I described her to a friend as the most easily hateable and contemptible character since, like, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter 5 The performance was absolutely amazing--Lawrence nailed it spot on. But she was such a selfish, self-destructive, manipulative disaster area that I had nothing but disgust with her the whole film. Great character, for sure. But sympathetic? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I'm astonished that people are sympathizing Rosalyn. I described her to a friend as the most easily hateable and contemptible character since, like, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter 5 I guess it's somewhat relatable/pitiable for some reason (I was more the latter). She's an excellent character but you're probably right, sympathetic might not be the right word. She's incredibly interesting is probably a better way to put it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I'm astonished that people are sympathizing Rosalyn. I described her to a friend as the most easily hateable and contemptible character since, like, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter 5 Though I did really like "I know who that is". Probably the most emotion the film actually conveyed. It was also an extremely economical way of explaining years of history between the characters. Felt like it was from a different film. No Wave fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I gotta agree with Smudgie Buggler here - Amy Adams' incredibly weak performance really torpedoed the film. She is, theoretically, the lynchpin of the film, being the motivating factor for all the major character development. I think the bigger problem here is Adams excels in roles that require more subtlety and this one was so oversaturated with over-the-top acting that she was out of place. She was the only one that truly blew me away. Cooper basically reprised his role from Silver Linings, Lawrence did a bit too only with a touch more sadism, and Christian Bale did his Christian Bale thing. Why Adams was great: women with bottom of the barrel self-esteem tend to have a few traits, the most important of which is that their mouths curl downwards every time their face is at rest like they're always frowning. I can't recall any actress ever doing this in film history. They also tend to want to be anybody but themselves. Part of that is written into the role, but you can hear just how much she doesn't want to be herself in the first 30 minutes of the movie and how she thinks Irv is her ticket out of that. And then when she was acting as Lady Greensleeve, half of that stuff went away because she didn't have to be herself. She had the body language down and she carried herself with dignity and had great posture to boot. When she tells Richie she isn't who she said she is, all of those old issues come back, particularly the frowning. When she tells Richie, she's looking for someone who wants her to be her, thinking that'd be Richie, and it isn't. My favorite part is even in the end of the movie, that stuff doesn't disappear. She's just a bit older and has firmer object relations. I think the best part about Adams' performance is that, as Lady Greensleeve, the accent was atrocious, changed locales a few times, and went in and out. Magic Hate Ball posted:I felt like this film needed to be both tighter and have more down-time. The whole thing sorta rushed by, and it all played out so high-octane that after a while it was hard not to just check out and wait for it to be over. I got this feeling too. The whole thing felt disorganized. While a few of you in this thread are opening my eyes to a few things I didn't notice, Russell got tied up in explaining the characters more than he did to explaining the plot (in my opinion).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
I have a question about DeNiro's first scene. I thought the "sheikh" didn't speak arabic? That's what the whole tension was about when DeNiro started asking him questions. So how did he suddenly know what to say? At first I thought maybe he was wired to a translator or something which is why it took him so long to reply but they explicitly say they don't have a recording of that conversation so I don't see how him being wired is possible. Is this just one of the many plot goofs or was I not paying attention?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
He said he knew a few phrases but the audience is at first led to believe it's just super basic stuff like 'hello.' It was a surprise to everyone in the room and the audience that could understand and reply to what DeNiro had to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
He just said a generic reply for concluding a business deal, I didn't get the impression that he understood what de Niro said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Tagichatn posted:He just said a generic reply for concluding a business deal, I didn't get the impression that he understood what de Niro said. I think you are right. I'll have to pay attention when I re-watch it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Tagichatn posted:He just said a generic reply for concluding a business deal, I didn't get the impression that he understood what de Niro said. I feel like after the drunk guy hits the table the "sheik" gets his nerve back and manages to say the only things he knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
I thought that might be the case as well, that he was just saying the things he knew. What's weird is that one of the lines specifically made a comment that "this is real," which seems like an odd thing to include in your stock phrase and was very on-point as a reply to what De Niro said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Yup. That was the only scene with any tension and then they hand waved it away instantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
This was a bit of a jumble. My attention wandered around 80mins in so I think I missed some crucial plot points! The one scene that stood out for me was when they all went to the knocked-up casino with Polito. The smoke stuff made it look like a dodgy pop video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
I'm just happy that I can refer to microwaves as "science ovens" from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
The story at the core of this film was entertaining and all of the actors in the film were good (with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence both reprising their roles of "Bradley Cooper" and "Jennifer Lawrence", respectively). The tone felt off to me. Some scenes (like the mob meeting) felt like they were actually playing it fairly straight, but then, you've got J-Law and Amy Adams in the bathroom, which struck me as played for shock/laughs/confusion. It's like O'Russell wanted to make Burn After Reading and decided to splash a bit of No Country for Old Men in there to spice things up. It makes things interesting, just like when my neighbor brought around rice pudding made with her extra breastmilk: tastes OK, but something's a bit off and after you've learned the details, you're kind of grossed out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:
I wish he hadn't been in the movie at all. I'm terribly sick of his mobster spiel. But I also though Louie CK was miscast, so I might be the rtard here. The broken bones posted:I think the bigger problem here is Adams excels in roles that require more subtlety and this one was so oversaturated with over-the-top acting that she was out of place. God, this is all spot-on. BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Watched it tonight and while I'm not sure what the best film of 2013 was, this wasn't it. Could have used a lot more editing for clarity, storytelling and runtime. Didn't really get why we had Bale narrating 99% of the film but decided to let Adams narrate for a small chunk. Heart pills came out of nowhere but ultimately were pointless; it just felt a bit like trying to stuff too much in. Also, I loved O. Russel's films of the previous couple years, so, yeah, this is an honest critique.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 11:05
|
|