The Movie House - Part 4

Freeza wrote:The historical events are not as far off as you think, every single fiction period piece has its problems. But keep being a pretentious prick and dismiss our opinions and stop watching action films if that's much of a pain for you.

Havent you even read what I typed. Right, every period piece will have problems.
And If you are too dismissive of my opinions to the extent what you do is simply categorize them as one of those 'problems' then I dont have anything more to say to you, honestly.
These are NOT one among those problems, gosh! How saying one thing authoritatively happened in a particular year when it actually happened two years back is just a minor problem? Are you even aware what you are saying here. I cant believe you are allowing them to fool you and still be happy with and then on top of that throw stones at the one who is pointing that to you. In the 'other' films you pointed out, the difference is they havent shown an introduction like this in proper English. That way even if they tamper with it, we poor audience wont be able to know. Here its like they are warning us beforehand that Hey I am going to fool you and then pulling the trick.

And fyi, resorting to personal abuse wont solve anything, believe me. It will only make things worse. Lets try to communicate as civilized human beings. How hard you try you cant take me that route.

And you are calling me pretentious, when what I have only done is point out certain things as reasonably and honestly as I can. And then we find someone here talking like they know everything about films and the rest should only follow their lead.

Okay, I dont want to stretch this anymore further. I have said what I wanted to say. And I dont want to prove anything either. And as I long as I watch films I will put reviews of it as well, be it here be it somewhere else. If its too much of a  problem to you to read, and that I am not agreeing with what YOU say or think about films like the rest of the lot here does, well, I simply dont care.

Freeza wrote:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
Also interesting how the battle was so unrealistic when it happened for a guy in WWII where he singled handedly held off Germans with a machine gun on a broken tank

May be. But the way that was shown in this film didnt warrant any sort of realism or believability. Take off your Fury fan specs and think about it as a neutral for a second.

Its not at all surprising to learn about Audie Murphy, sometimes fact can be stranger than fiction. Thing is, its not about the event itself and the way it happened. Instead Its about solely its recreation and the manner in which its done, if you care to understand what I mean.

spoiler!! one last time. :

How is this line "I think I can live with that, especially if the disagreeing ones are the likes of McAgger." not condescending, you're disrespecting a user because you're a pretentious guy that thinks your opinion is more valid because your favorite films are art films. It's a damn fictional action film. The Total War thing happened. So what if they changed it two years.

You also complained that them killing all the Germans in the end was unrealistic. Even though I just provided a link where a soldier killed and injured 50 Germans on his own. I don't see how it's unrealistic that way.

You're talking about clichés, which is also something I don't agree with at all. You talk about historical accuracy, yet you call it a cliche when a traumatised soldier clings to his religious beliefs to find meaning in all the violence he has seen. I really think they for once nailed how military people would speak to each other is such setting. David Ayers dialogue was amazing in building the characters and how they interact with eachother. Shia Lebeouf's acting was world class, his eyes did so much great acting, tears lying in the edges of his eyes showing how much shit his character has seen.


Also, what are they fooling me with exactly? The only thing you think they're fooling us with is some years, that are irrelevant. And the tactics of the tanks. I can't see how that is "fooling" us. The action was great, the sound was amazing, acting amazing. I wanted to enjoy an action movie from David Ayer and I got exactly what I wanted.

just read the last few posts.

powerful bait magnet, but meh I won't bite. Got better things to do.

Looking forward to hearing how Foxcatcher is a piece of shit because someone didn't die the right year

Freeza wrote:How is this line "I think I can live with that, especially if the disagreeing ones are the likes of McAgger." not condescending, you're disrespecting a user because you're a pretentious guy that thinks your opinion is more valid because your favorite films are art films. It's a damn fictional action film. The Total War thing happened. So what if they changed it two years.

You also complained that them killing all the Germans in the end was unrealistic. Even though I just provided a link where a soldier killed and injured 50 Germans on his own. I don't see how it's unrealistic that way.

You're talking about clichés, which is also something I don't agree with at all. You talk about historical accuracy, yet you call it a cliche when a traumatised soldier clings to his religious beliefs to find meaning in all the violence he has seen. I really think they for once nailed how military people would speak to each other is such setting. David Ayers dialogue was amazing in building the characters and how they interact with eachother. Shia Lebeouf's acting was world class, his eyes did so much great acting, tears lying in the edges of his eyes showing how much shit his character has seen.


Also, what are they fooling me with exactly? The only thing you think they're fooling us with is some years, that are irrelevant. And the tactics of the tanks. I can't see how that is "fooling" us. The action was great, the sound was amazing, acting amazing. I wanted to enjoy an action movie from David Ayer and I got exactly what I wanted.

Oh allright, thats your problem. Have you seen his comment?

He said I am spouting garbage when I was trying to put my points as calmly and reasonably as I could. When someone comes and says something like that ridiculing your opinion without even caring to look what you are saying, tell me it wont infuriate you. Yea Go on.
If someone is that dismissive about me, then why should care whether or not he is agreeing or not. I didnt say anything wrong there,Cant believe that brought you to the conclusion that I am a pretentious p****.

For the rest of the points you made I have already said enough and more. If you care to read it, you can.

Freeza wrote:Looking forward to hearing how Foxcatcher is a piece of shit because someone didn't die the right year

well, if its a true story, and if its intro'd crap like Fury, count on it.

Freeza wrote:
You're talking about clichés, which is also something I don't agree with at all. You talk about historical accuracy, yet you call it a cliche when a traumatised soldier clings to his religious beliefs to find meaning in all the violence he has seen. I really think they for once nailed how military people would speak to each other is such setting. David Ayers dialogue was amazing in building the characters and how they interact with eachother. Shia Lebeouf's acting was world class, his eyes did so much great acting, tears lying in the edges of his eyes showing how much shit his character has seen.

Amazing you feel that way.
And werent you the one who criticized Under the Skin and Wes Anderson films ??
okay Now I get it.
How pointless this entire debate was.

Stick to Hollywood and its 'great' offerings man. Best of Luck and this

Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence’ Is Golden; Funding Locked For Director’s 20-Year Labor Of Love

http://deadline.com/2015/01/martin-scorsese-silence-1201355913/

After Silence, Scorsese will do The Irishman starring Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

Why can't he sign fresh actors instead of those washed up ones

Because the novel he is adapting has old characters.

And Im a rek u m8 if i ever meet u irl dont disrespect the goats

M99 wrote:Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence’ Is Golden; Funding Locked For Director’s 20-Year Labor Of Love

http://deadline.com/2015/01/martin-scorsese-silence-1201355913/

After Silence, Scorsese will do The Irishman starring Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

Can't wait to see both those films, Scorsese needs to get that Irishman movie made quickly. Hasn't he been trying to do it for 20 something years?

Can't wait for Silence, great cast overall. Really interested in seeing Adam Driver, he's been getting a main event push and I haven't really seen him in that much yet. Sad Watanabe pulled out though

RG class is permament ffs.
The Irishman, and with that cast, why do I think this will be a mix of The Godfather, GoodFellas and The Departed

Scorsese still going at this age You gotta respect that, could've easily retired by now and enjoy his last years in the Carribbeans.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Well ... That was interesting
I don't know how to begin to rate this film. All I know is the acting and the direction was EXCEPTIONAL!!!
Emma Stone stole the show Best performance in this film.
Norton was 2nd best. Crazy good this is why I am an Edward Norton fanboy
Keaton was amazing as well, but in my opinion isn't the best performance in 2014. (That still goes to Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler.)
The direction - the handheld style and what seemed to be the non-existence of cuts - and how this intensified the feel like I was sitting in a theatre the whole time

I will have to watch this again and sort out a rating before the Oscars and before I compile a final list of my top 10 favourites of 2014.
I don't think it'll be high on my favourites list, but it was definitely something else. Not really that funny. It's more satirical I guess and that's why it gets labelled as a comedy. It felt melodramatic like a real theatre performance, and I'm not really that fond of theatre. But still, I admire the melodramatic style and the strong form on an acting basis that theatre has. This probably isn't really a rewatchable film for many people, and I get that, but I am.....I don't know what word to use to be honest...maybe....intrigued, and I want to rate this ffs, so I'm definitely going to see it again.

Linklater who I am 98% sure will win best director can go shit in his pants. Alejandro González Iñárritu should be the rightful winner.

Largely agree with your review of Birdman, EG.

Just not sure if this will be enough to get Inarritu that Oscar though.

Lol Stone did what any serious actress should be able to do. Not even close to Keaton or Norton's performance.

I thought she was good, but I really liked Naomi Watts' frenetic, frantic debuting actress a bit better if we're talking female leads. I know a disproportionately high number of women like Stone's character so that portrayal just didn't resonate with me much as I've seen it too much.

The Spectacular Now
Honest and true. One of the better coming-of-age films out there.
Could totally relate as I'm at that age atm, and literally gone through the same plight about self-worth and having love in high school and then having reality smack you in the face as after high school you have to start making serious decisions for your life. Only problem is that it could've had more substance to it's story and Shailene Woodley's character.
My rating: 7.9/10

Rebaño Sagrado wrote:Lol Stone did what any serious actress should be able to do. Not even close to Keaton or Norton's performance.

People just tend to dislike Emma Stone, I don't know why as I love her, and yeah you seem to be one of them.
Yes, her character might have been ordinary and clichéd, but she was the one who mainly had me on the edge of my seat and invested the most throughout the film. That scene where she went all out at Keaton's character and all her scenes with Norton were standouts.

I haven't seen Birdman yet, but I've never rated Emma Stone as a serious actress.

I agree with El Gunner's thoughts on Linklater though - just because he decided to film Boyhood over 12 years doesn't mean that he automatically directed a better film. It's a novel idea, but it doesn't go beyond the level of "gimmick" on the innovation scale.

Me disliking her looks has nothing to do with how I rated her performance. She was fine. Nothing incredible as you say. Again any serious actress, pulls out a similar performance, while very few can do what Norton did.

Rebaño Sagrado wrote:Me disliking her looks has nothing to do with how I rated her performance. She was fine. Nothing incredible as you say. Again any serious actress, pulls out a similar performance, while very few can do what Norton did.

Agreed on that. While Stone was great, Norton and Keaton were on another level.

300: Rise of an Empire

I wasn't a fan of the first but this one made it look fantastic by comparison. I didn't even pay for it (it was on tv) but I still want my money back.

Mission: Impossible 5 to Arrive Five Months Earlier!

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/403213-mission-impossible-5-to-arrive-five-months-earlier

Watched Birdman... Yeah.. no way Linklater deserves any prices for directing.

Emmanuel Lubezki, best in the business right now, how can you be so great ffs. First Gravity, now this..

In my top 5 of 2014 releases.