Rate the last movie you saw

[The Oi]

That all may be true, but it was too dark/depressing more me to actually enjoy or appreciate.

Hmm.

I'm not really affected by most "dark/depressing" movies to the point where I can't enjoy them if they're otherwise very good.

The only movies that are known as truly good movies that I really struggle getting through are Eraserhead and Happiness, for totally differing reasons.

Eraserhead is just totally unsettling to me.

Happiness is excruciatingly awkward. If I recall, I think it was you that I convinced to watch that.

 

[gourimoko]

Couldn't agree more @The Oi ; No Country for Old Men is definitely a 10/10 in my book... One of the best movies I've seen.

 

[The Oi]

L: "Is uh..Carson Wells there?"

AC: "Not in the sense that you mean..."


COLD BLOODEEEEEED!!!!!

 

[Kbiz]

Was able to catch Cinderella Man on cable last night...not the first time i've seen the movie but deserves mention here. I think this is my favorite sports movie of all time.

The movie never drags even if Ron Howard gets a bit heavy-handed with the family drama...it never seems forced. It has the some of best boxing cinematography i've ever seen.

It's often overlooked for some reason but i'd argue that it's one of Paul Giamatti's best performances....also Russell Crowe's for that matter. 10/10 for me.

 

[David.]

L: "Is uh..Carson Wells there?"

AC: "Not in the sense that you mean..."


COLD BLOODEEEEEED!!!!!

I'll always compare it to there will be blood.

I remember choosing no country to watch with my dad because he likes Tommy Lee Jones.. it kept interest, but eh for me.

Years later I watched there will be blood.. markedly better imo

 

[BMAN]

L: "Is uh..Carson Wells there?"

AC: "Not in the sense that you mean..."


COLD BLOODEEEEEED!!!!!

Make the call.

 

[The Oi]

I'll always compare it to there will be blood.

I remember choosing no country to watch with my dad because he likes Tommy Lee Jones.. it kept interest, but eh for me.

Years later I watched there will be blood.. markedly better imo

Why do you compare the two? They're nothing alike except that they came out in the same year.

 

[David.]

Why do you compare the two? They're nothing alike except that they came out in the same year.

Tone, time period released and I'm pretty sure they were fighting for the same awards.

 

[The Oi]

Tone, time period released and I'm pretty sure they were fighting for the same awards.

Yeah, I just think you're setting one or the other up for failure if you compare them. I don't think they have much in common at all.

Like comparing Road to Perdition to Gangs of New York because they were in the same year and had a similar tone, which they really don't.

But to each their own. You're obviously allowed to not love a movie I do.

Speaking of which...I feel like Road to Perdition is under-rated.

 

[David.]

Yeah, I just think you're setting one or the other up for failure if you compare them. I don't think they have much in common at all.

Like comparing Road to Perdition to Gangs of New York because they were in the same year and had a similar tone, which they really don't.

But to each their own. You're obviously allowed to not love a movie I do.

Speaking of which...I feel like Road to Perdition is under-rated.

Aesthetically both were dark, visually and in story.. same in tone, with Blood being more discordant yet locomotive.. ncfom is more short term thrill and I love Cohen brothers but I think the deeper meaning, which it anti climactically conceded to at the end, fell a little flat (at least to a 19 year old)

How would you describe their differences?


Haven't seen road to perdition.

 

[The Oi]

Aesthetically both were dark, visually and in story.. same in tone, with Blood being more discordant yet locomotive.. ncfom is more short term thrill and I love Cohen brothers but I think the deeper meaning, which it anti climactically conceded to at the end, fell a little flat (at least to a 19 year old)

How would you describe their differences?


Haven't seen road to perdition.

Blood was a character study about a sociopathic oil magnate, following him from the early stages of building his empire to the end of his life where he ends his life a lonely and tragic figure. A locomotive is a great way to describe it, particularly because one is prominently featured in the movie when he "abandons his boy." Yes, there was focus on the boy-preacher, but the movie was a Daniel Day Lewis vehicle through and through. A tremendous movie by the way. I wouldn't take anything away from it. I'm just answering your question about how they're different here.

No Country had more featured characters and was much more interested in developing them. It was a movie about one of the greatest movie villains of all time (Chigurh) stalking a brash new to the game DGAF protagonist (Llewelyn) with a not at all new to the game DGAF sheriff (Bell) mixed in. Mix in hitman a second hitman/bounty hunter Carson and you've got four different men converging on the same briefcase full of dough with each character being developed to different extent.

And as with other Cohen movies, it was more dialogue- and dialect- driven than Blood, with the exception of some scenes involving guns. The characters nailed the accents of that area of the country...with Chigurh somehow maintaining his mysterious who the fuck knows where he's from accent with his who the fuck knows where he's from name.

No Country was sort of a Western/Crime/Drama.

I just think they're very different movies.

 

[David.]

Blood was a character study about a sociopathic oil magnate, following him from the early stages of building his empire to the end of his life where he ends his life a lonely and tragic figure. A locomotive is a great way to describe it, particularly because one is prominently featured in the movie when he "abandons his boy." Yes, there was focus on the boy-preacher, but the movie was a Daniel Day Lewis vehicle through and through. A tremendous movie by the way. I wouldn't take anything away from it. I'm just answering your question about how they're different here.

No Country had more featured characters and was much more interested in developing them. It was a movie about one of the greatest movie villains of all time (Chigurh) stalking a brash new to the game DGAF protagonist (Llewelyn) with a not at all new to the game DGAF sheriff (Bell) mixed in. Mix in hitman a second hitman/bounty hunter Carson and you've got four different men converging on the same briefcase full of dough with each character being developed to different extent.

And as with other Cohen movies, it was more dialogue- and dialect- driven than Blood, with the exception of some scenes involving guns. The characters nailed the accents of that area of the country...with Chigurh somehow maintaining his mysterious who the fuck knows where he's from accent with his who the fuck knows where he's from name.

No Country was sort of a Western/Crime/Drama.

I just think they're very different movies.

I see where you're coming from.. I compare the two more based on feel. Stories can be similar and be completely different (Bug compared to Mr. Right touch on similar themes, but they aren't close in feel.. they both have romance and insanity, but one is a romcom and the other shows a couples descent into madness, schizophrenia and suicide)

Not only Is "locomotive" a reference to the train, but the pace itself. It's a handful of acts (decorated with Johnny greenwood dischord) that start with an uravellable character, and crescendos steadily into his unraveling.. beating a preacher to death with a bowling pin and then proclaiming war on his deaf "Bastard in a basket" child.

I disagree w your take on development in this sense: there were few characters in blood and you saw quite the arc (especially with plainview, next preacher). This is subjective, but I cared exponentially more about plain view than anyone in old men.. however, the pacing was quicker with old men and we're hit in the face with high interest sparking shit right from the get go (blood a several ton mass that gains steam and momentum as it goes) so old men = easier to watch (not the first time I'be said that

I'll have to watch it again. I just felt ultimately it lacked climax, and the message wasn't as relatable (which is scary) but some parts were really strong and the structure of conversations and messages hidden inside them were closer to what QT did with perfection in inglorious bastards

 

[macbdog]

I'll simplify this for all of you: if you love Cormac McCarthy books/movies, then you have serious self-loathing issues. That said, I love them. I also realize they are not anyone with a positive outlook on life's cup of tea. Your have to look way too hard for the silver lining to the point most just make it up. NCFOM- it ends with the biggest badass being exposed as a fraud. Not as principaled as he claimed he was, trying to buy his way out of fate. And that monologue at the end... Pulling teeth. At least in the book I can stop and go back to it. No such luck in the movie.

 

[Zeus69]

Patriots Day: 8/10

Even though you know how it ends, the storytelling and raw, intense depiction of the event and aftermath really kept me glued. My girl was teary eyed at the end. Marky Mark has come a long way since the funky bunch and I actually look forward to movies he headlines. I hate the f'in Red Sox, but give them and the city of Boston a major thumbs up for how they united after tragedy. And "Boston Strong" is a pretty damn cool slogan.

 

[David.]

Patriots Day: 8/10

Even though you know how it ends, the storytelling and raw, intense depiction of the event and aftermath really kept me glued. My girl was teary eyed at the end. Marky Mark has come a long way since the funky bunch and I actually look forward to movies he headlines. I hate the f'in Red Sox, but give them and the city of Boston a major thumbs up for how they united after tragedy. And "Boston Strong" is a pretty damn cool slogan.

Wanna see this.