Bronson - 1/5

This is one of the most meaningless and vapid films I have seen lately, and if you know the kinds of films I sometimes watch, then you know there's something to be said there. I just don't get what this movie was going for. It's a "biopic" on Britain's most famous prisoner, Charlie Bronson, but it's told in a way so silly and inane that it would make Adam Sandler blush. Literally all there is to this, is the fact that Bronson (played by Tom Hardy) is crazy. That's it. No deeper psychological study, no drama...nothing else. The movie is broken up into segments separated by Hardy standing on a stage in front of a crowd narrating like it's a big comedy show. At first this was interesting, but after about 15 minutes it becomes clear that this movie is not in the business of doing anything but annoying you with shallow gimmickry. There's no character development, no depth...I had no more of a picture of who Charlie Bronson was when this movie ended then when it began. The film squanders its storytelling potential in wasteful, banal comedic attempts that will never make you laugh, partly because there are actually no jokes, only awkward "lol look at how WEIRD this shit is" moments. Sure, you could glean some kind of point to all of this yourself, but whatever you come up with is way more thought than the director and writers put into the actual finished product - never a good sign. If all you want is stupid shit like a naked Tom Hardy running around with face paint and paper mache cartoon characters, then this is a fine choice for you; but I think there is a deeper story here not being told in favor of some truly hideously bad "comedy," and for that I can't recommend this to anyone. An awful movie that I will rejoice in never having to watch again.

Yeah, Bronson was pure shit. My buddy told me to watch it just to fuck with me. There's absolutely nothing to it except Tom Hardy beating people up.

Bronson is brilliant, what the hell are you people talking about? The whole trashy, operatic style of the film captures that insane sense of violently comedic melodrama that Charlie seemed to embody.

Have either of you read any of the books he has written?

Oh yes, Bronson sucked. One of my film/photography friends recommended it, and i found it to be pure horseshit. As a biopic it's completely unapproved by Bronson himself, and instead insists on fabricating events, largely the stupid overly stylised theatrical presentation style, where the protagonist is presented as some imagined superstar, addressing us, the audience in a tacky, shallow scheme that seems dreamed up by a 16 year old. The film consists of this, and Bronson exacting violence on prison and mental health personnel. There is nothing deeper to it. It relies on its presentation, and central gimmick, and is the kind of film who's "edginess" and quirkiness first year film students would get talking at cafes about, purposefully loudly so as people at adjacent tables could hear them addressing such a "brave" "original" piece of cinema. Hollow, trite schlock. You happened to give it the same rating and general dressing down i did Emp.

Nope, but there was no melodrama or comedy in this movie - just violence...not enough to make a good movie at all. It was mind numbingly stupid. The film skims through large portions of his life very lazily and there's really just nothing in it to make it worth watching.

Well, The Hobbit was... ok. Certainly not great. I would give it a 5 or 6 on a 10 point scale. Seriously. This from a guy who has watched even the behind the scenes DVDs that came with the LOTR deluxe editions several times each. But I have no desire to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again.

It was just lazy film making on the part of Peter Jackson. The editing is terrible and destroys the pace of the film. Over and over again there are periods of silence that are too long to be dramatic pauses. There are close ups of characters giving meaningful looks that go on for 4, 5 seconds. I just wanted to yell Jesus, fucking CUT already! A couple of times you can't tell where the characters are in their journey, since they seem to be either in mountains or plains pretty much interchangeably. I seriously suspect that some of those scenes were edited out of order. Although it's a fun movie for LOTR fans, whether you know the books or not, it's just not a good movie.



I have read that Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson are continuing their tendency to write & rewrite as they go along, so hopefully they'll scratch out a lot of the fluffy bullshit and produce a tighter cut of the next two movies. Oh, and don't bother with 48fps, or IMAX, or 3D. It has the opposite of the intended effect. It is intensely clear - so clear that items that are supposed to be wood are clearly resin. Items that are intended to be steel are clearly plastic. Locations that are supposed to be in Middle-earth are clearly movie sets. It is an experiment that has failed.

That's the reason I want to watch it. Also, he has a stache.

I liked the slow pace of the Hobbit pt 1 and didn't mind their insertions; most of them were things that happened "off-camera" in the book. The Azog thing was OK as it emphasized the personal nature of the blood feud between the dwarves and the orcs, but we'll have to wait until probably the third movie to determine whether or not that plotline is a success in the whole. I'm pretty damn sure Azog will end up leading the orcs in the Battle of Five Armies, and he and Thorin will probably end up fighting each other to the death. Obviously it's not canon but it's not changing things that are particularly important to the overall narrative.

Spoorloos (1988)
George Sluizer
4/5

Classy, Artistic Thriller

This is a really well executed, some what unique Dutch thriller. It gives off a really creepy tone, managing to escape the cliched, obvious trappings of most similarly themed serial killer type murder thrillers. The film is about Rex Hofman, a young Dutchman who years after the disappearance of his young girlfriend Saskia while they vacation in France, is still obsessed with finding out what happened to her. He painstakingly pursues every lead, pleading on TV shows, making flyers, and his preoccupation with the case takes a heavy toll on his life and mental health. This is such a great feeling, unique thriller. It reveals the kidnapper straight away, and slowly reveals his motives, personality, and the why and how, rather than teasing us with glimpses of "who done it". The film features one of the most memorable movie villains of my experience, and the film is pieced together and paced excellently, exuding artistic style and creativity. Acting carries the film excellently, especially the tragic Rex and the brilliant villain.

The film was critically acclaimed at the time, and was the subject of a later English remake that failed to capture the same tone and style as the original. It's a film with a tragic aura and originality, and a highly recommended mystery/thriller.

The Guard is really good.

Haha, dude, you strike me as a person who actually enjoys things of quality...trust me, don't go into Bronson with any expectations if you do watch it. It's pretty much unwatchable and I probably should've just given it a 0/5 up there.

It does have Peep Show's Super Hans in it though!

Oh yeah, i remember him popping up in it! Perhaps the only redeeming feature? Peep Show rules.

Ah, I know, I would watch it for the fun of it and because I like Hardy.

I'm watching LOTR right now, halfway through The Two Towers (the Warg battle) and I'm really enjoying this, as good as I remember them to be. I'll watch TROTK tomorrow. Can't wait to see the Hobbit! (DRD, you shut your rockstar mouth!)

Seconding The Guard, great movie. Gleeson is awesome!

Amongst all the other Hobbit stuff in my city in the leadup to the premiere here, they had a big fair setup at one of the waterfront parks with stalls and Hobbit style signage and markets etc. They had a big outdoor screen setup in the park and were screening the LOTR trilogy. Thousands of people were down there watching them in the park. I guess there's a few few nerds here that would have enjoyed that.

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but:

It's not as accessible as I thought it would be, given that The Hobbit is the book that school children read in class (LOTR, generally, was not). It has a slow pace and fantastical elements just seem to come out of nowhere: for me, that's fine because I am well-versed in the books. For people who haven't read them, it feels really weird and strange. That's the feedback I received from people I took with me, who never read the book

The "gross out" elements are played-up, un-necessarily. It didn't add anything to the film, and actually just served as a distraction.

Unfortunately not. I had to catch it at a local film festival and to my knowledge there hasn't yet been a proper theatrical release.



I got the impression you were into the 'feel-good movies'. That pretty much describes Beasts.

Antichrist: First Lars Von Trier film I see. I'll definitely seek more out (but not Melancholia, that movie looks tremendously boring.) It's a beautifully shot thing that looks amazing and dares to be different. I will say I wasn't really disturbed by the extreme violence and genital mutilation, but I'll admit it was quite much for a relatively mainstream film. It certainly pulls no punches. Yes it's pretentious, there are boring moments, Charlotte Gainsbourg is almost too intense, and by the time it was over I had no idea how to explain a lot what happened cause a lot of it was symbolism and implicit, but all of it felt very deliberate. As a result, it was a very cohesive film. Ultimately it is a great, if profoundly misogynistic movie that suggest woman is inherently evil and deceitful.

Finally gathered my thoughts on The Hobbit. Basically, fans expecting the serious epic and grandeur scale of the LOTR films will probably be left unsatisfied, as this film is lighter and a lot more charming. It is, however, extremely well done. Given the fact that the information density in the LOTR books was enormous, The Hobbit will have no problem in projecting its story in its given timeframe. On a basis of narrative and character development, this means that The Hobbit could in fact become a superior trilogy of films (and yes I am well aware Jackson and co have implemented stuff from appendixes, Unfinished Tales etc) . Oh and given the fact its shot in 48fps, take any chance possible to see it in that framerate

The Hobbit could have been made in 2 movies, with ease. The book is already way lighter than the LOTR trilogy and I felt Jackson is trying to portray it in a deeper sense it is, thus taking elements from another books to fill the voids of the Hobbit. Still in the opposite sense, I feel the dwarves, especially Thorin are underdeveloped and badly portrayed. It could have been a bit shorter without losing anything.

Be prepared for more script surprises. 6,5/10 here.

In what way is Thorin underdeveloped? And even so, how does it differ from the shitload of non-developed characters in the original trilogy? I agree that The Hobbit could've easily been shot in 2 films, but if Jackson hasn't decided to take the story on a (sub)plot railroad from film 2 on out (hopefully not), I don't see how it could possibly be worse than for example 'Fellowship' or 'Return'. These last two films left so many plot gaps that it got kinda sad. And no, I'm not bitching that the original trilogy sucks, but they had to leave so much out of there; The Hobbit is a way smaller book, so the possibility for coherent storytelling and fleshing out characters is greatly increased here.

This is a weird statement.
I was really pleased both with Armitage's performance, and Thorin's character plotwise. Of course, he ain't all that grumpy in the books, but they're going for the 'bitter fury' mindset with him, and it works great. Whether it's Azog or Bolg he's head to head, doesn't really matter.

I thought there was some good black comedy in it. I belly laughed a few times. Did you honestly expect some sort of intellectual, artful, subtle masterpiece from a movie about the life of a prison fighter? He's a prison fighter with a Wagnerian sense of spectacle. That's what Bronson was all about: spectacle. He wanted to be famous. That is all. He has said that in his books, and to me the movie is a pretty nice little statement on how the desire for fame/infamy can possibly trump all other aspirations and lead to literally mindless behavior. Hence, a mindless, fun, graciously violent film. The only thing he was good at was beating the shit out of people. I would thoroughly expect a movie about a graciously violent prison fighter to be...graciously violent, somewhat devoid of any real meaningful insights, and because of Bronson's imagination I would also expect something somewhat...bizarre.

Any attempt to intellectualize the subject matter would have been ridiculous and self-indulgent on the filmmakers part. From what I can see, it looks like the movie was made by someone who had at least a partial grasp of Bronson's mindset. Like Bronson's own mind, the film was hollow, violent, very stylized. It's an artistic bully film. Because that is all Bronson was.

The interludes with him reciting his life story to an audience that is or isn't there is perfect. The amount of time in solitary confinement this man has done is unimaginable to everybody on this board. The movie is somewhat solipsistic, nihilistic, bleak, and gaudy.

In other words, it's absolutely perfect for the subject matter. I would recommend reading some of the books Bronson has written before watching the movie. I can understand not liking the movie, but to rag on it because it "presents the protagonist as some imagined superstar" is silly. Charlie Bronson was a thoroughly imagined superstar, and the movie did a superb job of getting his nuttiness in that regard across. At least to me. And I've read few different places that Bronson was enthralled with Hardy. It's not authorized by him, sure, but he's not allowed to see it. His mother liked it.

I don't know why I'm defending the movie so ardently. I guess it was a breath of fresh air for me, what with all the high-concept stuff that people have been infatuated with lately.

You're using that whole fallacy that people do when trying to defend movies like this, in which, if I don't like the movie, apparently I "was expecting an intellectual and artful masterpiece." No. I expected a story and a coherent plot in which we saw a clear narrative about the life of this guy. We didn't get that; all we got was gimmicky garbage. The on-stage stuff was going for something expressive about his insanity, but mostly just came off as trite and annoying. I'm not even looking for that much depth, but, you know, at least enough to actually convey any of the things you're saying, like this:



None of this was conveyed properly at all. I saw the first couple minutes and I was like, "OK, so he's reacting to an audience that may be a figment of his imagination...interesting," but then the movie did nothing with it. There was no logical flow between events, no real character...nothing to point out that this was anything more than hack work. All of the things you got from this movie I would say are just your own projections onto it, because there was nothing there in the film itself. There's a line between artistic expressive films and just meaningless empty nonsense. It's a film about a prison fighter, yes. But that doesn't mean it can't tell an actual story, or be more than just irritating crap. Have we "evolved" past that now?

I don't know if there's much more to say on my part, but if you have something else to add I'll definitely read it. Interested to see the exact opposite point of view.

You are correct in saying that a lot of what appeals to me about Bronson are my own projections onto it. But I've always been tickled by movies like that - languorous, empty films that really leave room for the viewer to interpret it on his own terms. Which we all have to do - especially with a movie like this, because none of us know what it is like to do that kind of time. Bronson certainly is a film that leaves a lot of room for the mind to wander. You aren't suffocated by plot or characters. You are given a barren portrait of a madman, and it is up to the viewer to figure out why the fuck he is so crazy.

I personally thought the movie itself was supposed to be more about the state of mind solitary confinement put this guy into, rather than his life story. Coherent plotting and clear narrative, I think, would have been injustice to the madness of Charlie Bronson's life and observations. Violence, bizarre interludes, and a sense of emptiness are exactly what make it work for me.

Different strokes, as always.

On to a movie I know we can all agree about, I watched Chinatown again last night. This film never fails to astound me. Polanski rarely misfired. Has anyone here seen The Ghost Writer? That was a great movie, too. Brosnan should haven gotten an award.

I love Bronson. 4½/5

Carry on.

I guess my preconceived notions about getting a serious drama didn't help how I saw the film, but yeah, just pissed me off overall. Ah well.

The Ghost Writer was pretty cool. And of course Chinatown's a masterpiece...gotta love that one.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 7.5 out of 10.

Yes, it's flawed. Yeah, they do tend to have more screen time for Thorin then Bilbo. But it was very much entertaining and a fun time. It felt like LOTR, but at the same time it felt different from it as well so it's not just another addition to the series.

Clearly a huge Polanski fan here. I saw Ghost Writer a few months back, and didn't go in with high expectations, but found it enjoyable. I liked the tone of the film, and enjoyed MacGregor's performance. I'm not a huge fan of his or anything, but some films he's really enjoyable to watch, others he seems kinda average. I do enjoy political thrillers though, and i felt Ghost Writer was the best one i've seen in a while. The plot was decent enough, and i suppose the twists weren't as contrived as in plenty of modern thrillers. I liked it. 3/5

Glad to hear you enjoyed. I felt the same way: I went in not expecting much, and came out thoroughly impressed. And it gets better with each viewing, I've found. The woman who played Brosnan's wife (her name escapes me) was phenomenal, as well.

Any fans of The Fisher King here? What a glorious film.

^Yeah she was good. Yeah actually i had an urge to watch it again the other day. It seems like that kinda film for sure; rewatchablity.

Yes, I quite like the Fisher King. I'm a big fan of some of Williams' more sentimental movies.

Yeah, Williams has done some good stuff. Terry Gilliam really crafted a gem with the Fisher King though. It is one of the few movies Williams is in where I feel he doesn't steal the show (for better or for worse) with his madness. Jeff Bridges did a great job in it, too. As did Mercedes Reuhl.

Puppet Master (1989) 3.5/5 {*}
An eclectic group of psychics are joined at an old hotel for the burial of their former colleague. None of the gathered knew the totality of the project the now dead guy was working on. Soon automated "toys" start killing the guests and the evilness of their dead(?) boss is revealed. Part "old dark house", part gore (green blood ala Evil Dead), and part comedy, this does have a few jarring moments mixed with the silliness of it all.

Puppet Master II (1991) 3/5
A couple years after the incidents at the hotel, a group a psychics explore the building and grounds to look for an explanation of the earlier horrifying scene. One of the surviving psychics from the first film has been locked in an insane asylum and is assumed to the perpetrator of the ghastly horrors. The new group pf psychics start to drop off in much the same fashion as the first set. Not as good as the initial film of the series, but some good stuff like the introduction of Torch!

I've tried to like The Fisher King, as it's the kind of film I tend to enjoy; I want to like it, if that makes sense. But... I just couldn't find an emotional connection there. Williams' performance leaves me cold, and Bridges annoys me after a while; I'm not quite sure why this particular movie just doesn't work for me.

I loved it because of the inherent Arthurian references, as I saw the movie long after reading de Troyes' stories. The Red Knight was just great!

Saw The Hobbit because a new movie theater near my house opened up and that happened to be playing. I'm not really a fantasy genre guy and I have no connection at all to LOTR. Never saw the movies, never read the books. The Hobbit seems a little confused - is it trying to be light hearted fare? It has a lot of moments suggesting that because of the way it moves. Then, 3 minutes later, decapitated heads are rolling around. As far as the story itself, I got into Game of Thrones through the HBO show and all I can do is constantly compare the two in my mind. I know this is a bad thing to do because The Hobbit is really a children's book and isn't intended to have the complexity that GoT does, but I can't help it. It is there in my mind. Where are the women and have any of the characters in this film ever gotten laid? Don't any of the characters have more complex motivations for what they're doing? I also can't remember the lead Elf's name because I hear the "Oakenshield" and immediately print in my mind that his name is Paul Oakenfold. That's my fault, not the movie's. Not sure I'll see parts 2 and 3 unless there is absolutely nothing else in the theater to see when they're out.

You have an odd notion of elves
Dwarf*

Man, that absolutely makes my day.

The Ides of March: Politics is in these days, but unfortunately instead of focusing on real politics, it's once again a scandal, a cover-up and drama in moments instead of the actual behind the things. It's well-written and well-performed, but all in all, feels like a workhorse instead of something inspired.

The Girl Can't Help It: Jayne Mansfield vehicle that become a rock sensation. Great music, good performances from the bands and performers - as a film though? Dated, very much so. The humor doesn't work in this day and age anymore and a lot of it is based on Mansfield's looks and figure and the reaction it causes in men, which seems pretty crass in this day and age. Fun in the way that it is ridiculous and stupid. But yeah, excellent music - simplistic film.

Pandorum: If I'd known before hand that Paul W.S. Anderson was involved, I would've skipped it. That man can ruin anything. It's a pretty interesting concept though certainly not very creative. These kinds of things have been done before - we all know the significant ones - but I was inkling for something sci-fi so this was ideal. At least in the beginning. Turned to a lot of dumb action with weird invaders as horror creatures and the exposition was a bit flimsy. Some good parts in the middle with the myths that have been created, but not worth one's time in the end.