Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Movie Reviews
So I recently went on a kind of Western Movie marathon. Since most western movies are kind of like pizza and blowjobs (being pretty enjoyable even if they are bad), I was surprised to find one that would actually give a thumbs down to...
But alas, five films into my western movie marathon I stumbled across one that really didn't live up to standards.
American Outlaws
Now this movie came out in 2001 so I'll cut it a bit of slack. It's not uncommon in Hollywood to see Jesse James portrayed as some kind of idealistic racist robin hood, but this film really has the fingerprints of studio executives written all over it. As much as I love Collin Farrell, this role is completely miscast. The historical Jesse James was an uneducated bigot who continued the civil war long after Appomattox. He was a thief and a murderer This movie portrays him as a naive "aww shucks" farmboy fighting against society. He certainly was not an Irish country rube with MMA skills and knack for quoting Shakespeare.
I love historical movies and I have a penchant for looking past historical inaccuracies but if the movie is just bad and formulaic then I have to call it like it is. I would love to see an actual historical movie about Jesse James and I think that since we are past the Hollywood historical blinders that have been holding back decent film making I think we might actually see one. "The Assassination of Jesse James..." starring Brad Pitt was more historically accurate but since the movie focused more on the last 7 months of James's life it was more of a character study. Although the acting was way above average and the cinematography was beautiful, the two hours and forty minutes run time made it the cinematic equivalent of watching paint dry.
So unless you want to see Collin Farrell do his best at butchering an American Accent, I suggest you give this one a pass. 5/10
My next review will be "The Zookeeper's Wife." Please feel free to comment and add your own take.
But alas, five films into my western movie marathon I stumbled across one that really didn't live up to standards.
American Outlaws
Now this movie came out in 2001 so I'll cut it a bit of slack. It's not uncommon in Hollywood to see Jesse James portrayed as some kind of idealistic racist robin hood, but this film really has the fingerprints of studio executives written all over it. As much as I love Collin Farrell, this role is completely miscast. The historical Jesse James was an uneducated bigot who continued the civil war long after Appomattox. He was a thief and a murderer This movie portrays him as a naive "aww shucks" farmboy fighting against society. He certainly was not an Irish country rube with MMA skills and knack for quoting Shakespeare.
I love historical movies and I have a penchant for looking past historical inaccuracies but if the movie is just bad and formulaic then I have to call it like it is. I would love to see an actual historical movie about Jesse James and I think that since we are past the Hollywood historical blinders that have been holding back decent film making I think we might actually see one. "The Assassination of Jesse James..." starring Brad Pitt was more historically accurate but since the movie focused more on the last 7 months of James's life it was more of a character study. Although the acting was way above average and the cinematography was beautiful, the two hours and forty minutes run time made it the cinematic equivalent of watching paint dry.
So unless you want to see Collin Farrell do his best at butchering an American Accent, I suggest you give this one a pass. 5/10
My next review will be "The Zookeeper's Wife." Please feel free to comment and add your own take.
The Linebacker
I have never seen American Outlaws. The thought of Collin Farrell playing Jesse James is rather comedic. No doubt, Jesse James was a cold blooded killer, probably more akin to the modern serial killer. Jesse James several times shot his victims, often unarmed, during robberies when it was completely unnecessary to do so to make their escape, just cold blooded murder.
My favorite movie based on The James Gang is The Longriders. All sets of brothers are played by brothers. Stacy and James Keach play Frank and Jesse James. The James's first-cousins, the Youngers, are played by the Carradine brothers. I particularly enjoyed David Carradine's portrayal of Cole Younger, who was actually the best gunman of the gang but not so cold-blooded as his first-cousin, Jesse.
There is a scene where Belle Starr, played by Pamela Reed asks Cole Younger why he never married her. He replies, "Cause you're a whore." She is not offended by that.
The movie has Dennis and Randy Quaid also playing brothers that were cousins of the James's.
The members of the James Gang learned their expertise at killing when they rode as members of Quantrill's Raiders during the American Civil War. The raids and fighting between the Missouri and Kansas militias were gruesome and totally barbaric, much like we see now between warlords in African civil wars or IS in the middle-east. A true breeding ground for psychopathic killers.
My favorite movie based on The James Gang is The Longriders. All sets of brothers are played by brothers. Stacy and James Keach play Frank and Jesse James. The James's first-cousins, the Youngers, are played by the Carradine brothers. I particularly enjoyed David Carradine's portrayal of Cole Younger, who was actually the best gunman of the gang but not so cold-blooded as his first-cousin, Jesse.
There is a scene where Belle Starr, played by Pamela Reed asks Cole Younger why he never married her. He replies, "Cause you're a whore." She is not offended by that.
The movie has Dennis and Randy Quaid also playing brothers that were cousins of the James's.
The members of the James Gang learned their expertise at killing when they rode as members of Quantrill's Raiders during the American Civil War. The raids and fighting between the Missouri and Kansas militias were gruesome and totally barbaric, much like we see now between warlords in African civil wars or IS in the middle-east. A true breeding ground for psychopathic killers.
Cryptic Vigilante
Excellent idea! I might dig up a few obscure movies that I watched in the past few years and suggest them to people who might have missed them.
When I'll be over with my relocation project and have a bit more time for it, that is...
When I'll be over with my relocation project and have a bit more time for it, that is...
Quote by Buz
I have never seen American Outlaws. The thought of Collin Farrell playing Jesse James is rather comedic. No doubt, Jesse James was a cold blooded killer, probably more akin to the modern serial killer. Jesse James several times shot his victims, often unarmed, during robberies when it was completely unnecessary to do so to make their escape, just cold blooded murder.
My favorite movie based on The James Gang is The Longriders. All sets of brothers are played by brothers. Stacy and James Keach play Frank and Jesse James. The James's first-cousins, the Youngers, are played by the Carradine brothers. I particularly enjoyed David Carradine's portrayal of Cole Younger, who was actually the best gunman of the gang but not so cold-blooded as his first-cousin, Jesse.
There is a scene where Belle Starr, played by Pamela Reed asks Cole Younger why he never married her. He replies, "Cause you're a whore." She is not offended by that.
The movie has Dennis and Randy Quaid also playing brothers that were cousins of the James's.
The members of the James Gang learned their expertise at killing when they rode as members of Quantrill's Raiders during the American Civil War. The raids and fighting between the Missouri and Kansas militias were gruesome and totally barbaric, much like we see now between warlords in African civil wars or IS in the middle-east. A true breeding ground for psychopathic killers.
Longriders... A bit too old for my taste. 1980... Although if any genre holds up after time, its definitely westerns. I'll add it to my list.
"To The Bone," is a biographical film base on the story of a 20 year old suffering with longstanding anorexia. It premiered at Sundance this year and is now available on Netflix.
A subject that is often ignored in film and media, unless addressed by made for TV movies or cheesy lifetime specials, this is the first time anorexia has been show on the screen as an actual mental illness.
This is that kind of movie that makes me happy that a company like Netflix came around. This will never be the kind of movie that will draw families to the the theater so they can buy popcorn and 6 dollar jugs of diet Coke. This is the kind of movie that you will probably watch on a Sunday (maybe after Game of Thrones) and you will be pleasantly surprised.
I know that in a country where BMI is greater than average, there will be very little sympathy for a protagonist that would probably be still be the hottest commodity in anyone's high school.
But look beyond the photogenic appeal of the actress of was chosen to play the protagonist and try to understand the actual issues.
I give this movie a 7/10. I do think that it could have done a better job in getting into the emotional, psycho social aspects of the condition. Lilly Collins did an amazing job. Her darkly comedic wit worked perfectly. Keanu Reeves was great as the doctor. Leslie Bibb was also great (and continues to be an underrated actress, simply because the fact that she's hot as fuck.)
Watch this on Netflix and let me know what you think. I hope this opens up opportunities for fringe subjects to be addressed on film since now we have a medium available for the general public that doesn't involve Transformers or the latest incarnation of Pirates of The Caribbean.
"Some Freaks" is new indie movie that premiered at the Rhode Island Film Festival this year. (On second thought, I think that combination of words probably entitles me to condescendingly refer to this as a "film" and not a movie.) Insert "condescending dick smiley" here..
I have two big pet peeves when it comes to high school or college movies.
1) The dialogue is usually abysmal. It generally seems more fitting to an Archie comic from the late 1950's, than to a a contemporary lexicon.
2) There is usually an annoying habit of injecting social commentary that insinuates that objectively attractive people are either dumb, bad people...or usually both. On the flipside, weird or ugly people are often portrayed as generally "good", "smart" or "misunderstood" having yet to achieve their full "potential."
This movie shatters that stupid, simplistic paradigm in that it shows that everyone is more complex than their perceived appearance. Ugly people can be mean. Hot people can be nice... but more often, most humans are capable of the whole spectrum of behavior depending on the situation that they are in.
"Some Freaks" will not win any academy awards. It will most likely not even achieve "cult" status among film fans.
What it is, is a very intelligently written, very well acted small budget movie. It doesn't follow the usual movie formula, so it might not give the generally desired payoff to casual movie-goers.
If you do see this film on Netflix or something in the near future, give it a try. Especially if you like indie movies or can tolerate anything lacking CGI or prolonged action sequences.
Just a note: That trailer makes it seem a tad bit more dramatic than it actually is.
An PS: No, I don't just recommend it because the guy has an eye patch. I would say that I look far better than he does in an eye patch, but I would be afraid that people would take that as meaning I'm not as good of a person...
Cryptic Vigilante
I thought sharing this here rather than in that other thread where people are simply enumerating the latest movies they've seen, because well, this is a proper comprehensive review. Plus, I appreciated DamonX's initiative of creating an oasis of movie recommendations and would hate to see it completely fade away in the arid desert of Lush.
In any case, I felt like reviewing the movie Beauty and the Beast. Now I can already hear everybody protesting: "That movie is the 12th highest grossing film in the history of cinema and everybody has already seen it, you fucking moron". Hell no, I'm actually reviewing the Franco-German version which was released in 2014 and which only grossed 1/25th of the revenues at the international box-office despite being a dozen times more commendable.
I watched both the Franco-German and American versions in the last few weeks and figured it would be interesting to compare the two. I'll get this off my chest right away however: I really didn't appreciate the American version all that much. It's not that I have numerous reasons to criticize it, but rather that I definitely didn't seem to fit into the targeted audience. Let's face it, it was quite literally a remake of the 1991 Disney movie and therefore extremely childish/simplistic in nature, plus I just happen to thoroughly dislike these musical films. To me those sporadic (and totally absurd) bouts of singing never ever bring anything of value to the narrative and completely ruin any dramatic escalation that the overall plot is attempting to convey: "Tis a dire situation, let's all sing a buoyant song to truly highlight all that torment!". Yeah right.
With that out of the way, let's compare the two movies point by point:
Cinematography and mise-en-scène
The Franco-German version wins hands down despite relying on 1/4th of the budget. The American version appeared extremely artificial and plasticky to me; I felt like being transposed into a CGI studio much more than in a fantasy realm. I get that the producers were shooting for a cartoonish ambiance (to obviously hint at the previous Disney picture), but I still just didn't get any feeling of wonder or amazement while watching it. The Franco-German movie was a lot more atmospheric, nuanced, mature and immersive by comparison. Both mainly relied on CGI renderings to set the environments, but the Franco-German version managed to feel infinitely more real and tangible. As an example, here are the main towns of both movies side by side. American left and Franco-German right:
The overall CGI effects of the Franco-German version were also surprisingly quite professional, especially regarding Beast himself which I much preferred to the American one (who literally creeped me out at times with his overly agreeable expressions). And I say 'surprisingly' because in contrast to the American studio, that was achieved with 1/4th of the budget by a production team that didn't exactly emerge out of the #1 entertainment country in the world. Just a few odd subpar effects here and there where the lighting/blending wasn't 100% perfect, but still very engaging and pleasant to watch.
If you also watch it in the original French language as I did myself (with subtitles if you don't actually speak French), you'll also be a lot more immersed into the original story and the intended setting. Let's be clear, 'La Belle et la Bête' is a French fairytale which is also set in regional France, so needless to say, all those actors with a strong British accent in the American version didn't exactly pay a rightful tribute to the original tale for me. In this particular case, I say go French or go home, haha.
Plot and narrative
I guess you'll already see a pattern emerging here: the American version was extremely childish and simplistic compared to the Franco-German version. Inevitably, both versions ended up telling the exact same story, but the way a tale is told can still massively impact your appreciation of it. So what's the main theme of Beauty and the Beast exactly? Easy, appearances can sometimes be misleading and true love toward someone often requires deeper scrutiny.
The American version miserably failed at the whole 'digging deeper' aspect of that universal narrative: Beauty feels threatened by Beast (well kinda) until Beast saves her from a few wolves and she abruptly/radically changes her perspective toward him. In the Franco-German version, Beauty's affection is much more of a slow-burn: Beast's intentions are a lot more obscure and sketchy, Beauty is a lot more wary and reluctant toward him, and the romantic development is spread through the entirety of the movie in an engaging 'one step back, two steps forward' fashion. Moreover, both characters are significantly more fleshed out: Beast appears a lot more villainous and menacing by bitterly conforming his personality to his hideous appearance, while Beauty inevitably has to transcend her superficial appeal to put her foot down and resolve her unfortunate predicament.
As well, the whole movie felt a lot less formulaic than most American productions, which all seem to be built on the exact same profit-making frame and invariably end up being so goddamn clichéd and predictable. The only moment where the Franco-German version somehow felt a bit cheesy is near the end where there's an action sequence featuring gigantic live statues, but even that wasn't all that bad and still rather original and refreshing.
Bonus comparison: Emma Watson vs Léa Seydoux
Don't get me wrong, I happen to love Emma Watson: she's immensely talented, she manages to be both cute and gorgeous simultaneously, and she even vaguely resembles my girlfriend. But damn, Léa Seydoux. Léa Seydoux! Who could potentially resist that perplexing vulnerable-yet-blasé air which those French actresses always seem to master so wonderfully without even trying. And let me remind you, she was the sexy Bond girl in the latest movie Spectre. Spending a night with her would concurrently scratch three items on every sane man's list of sexual fantasies: a seductive Bond girl, an upscale French model, and an adorable little princess. I actually got tired of constantly biting my lips while watching that movie with my girlfriend and at one point I just inadvertently exclaimed: "Sorry to say, but I'd trade you for a cute little French princess in a fucking instant". To which my girlfriend cleverly retorted: "Well buddy, I'd trade you for a hideous beast in a fucking instant too". Ouch!
Seriously though, the movie stars Léa Seydoux and Vincent Cassel, two great actors who really elevated the film beyond my initial expectations.
The verdict
Let me be clear, that film neither was the greatest in the history of cinema nor completely blew me away. However, considering that the American version ended up being one of the most successful movies ever and that to me the Franco-German one was in fact superior in just about every way, I thought I'd offer credit to that unrecognized underdog. This isn't a movie that you will watch on the edge of your seat nor that will utterly transform your life, but if you're looking for something to transport you into a dreamy contemplative mood while reliving a universal parable, that version of Beauty and the Beast will definitely achieve that for you, with an extra-dose of exoticism if you happen to watch it in the original French language.
If I had to provide a rating where 5/10 would be an average score representing an uneventful movie that's neither deplorable nor praiseworthy, I'd give the American version a generous 4/10, while the Franco-German version would earn a 6.5/10 coming from me. Here's the trailer for those interested:
In any case, I felt like reviewing the movie Beauty and the Beast. Now I can already hear everybody protesting: "That movie is the 12th highest grossing film in the history of cinema and everybody has already seen it, you fucking moron". Hell no, I'm actually reviewing the Franco-German version which was released in 2014 and which only grossed 1/25th of the revenues at the international box-office despite being a dozen times more commendable.
I watched both the Franco-German and American versions in the last few weeks and figured it would be interesting to compare the two. I'll get this off my chest right away however: I really didn't appreciate the American version all that much. It's not that I have numerous reasons to criticize it, but rather that I definitely didn't seem to fit into the targeted audience. Let's face it, it was quite literally a remake of the 1991 Disney movie and therefore extremely childish/simplistic in nature, plus I just happen to thoroughly dislike these musical films. To me those sporadic (and totally absurd) bouts of singing never ever bring anything of value to the narrative and completely ruin any dramatic escalation that the overall plot is attempting to convey: "Tis a dire situation, let's all sing a buoyant song to truly highlight all that torment!". Yeah right.
With that out of the way, let's compare the two movies point by point:
Cinematography and mise-en-scène
The Franco-German version wins hands down despite relying on 1/4th of the budget. The American version appeared extremely artificial and plasticky to me; I felt like being transposed into a CGI studio much more than in a fantasy realm. I get that the producers were shooting for a cartoonish ambiance (to obviously hint at the previous Disney picture), but I still just didn't get any feeling of wonder or amazement while watching it. The Franco-German movie was a lot more atmospheric, nuanced, mature and immersive by comparison. Both mainly relied on CGI renderings to set the environments, but the Franco-German version managed to feel infinitely more real and tangible. As an example, here are the main towns of both movies side by side. American left and Franco-German right:
The overall CGI effects of the Franco-German version were also surprisingly quite professional, especially regarding Beast himself which I much preferred to the American one (who literally creeped me out at times with his overly agreeable expressions). And I say 'surprisingly' because in contrast to the American studio, that was achieved with 1/4th of the budget by a production team that didn't exactly emerge out of the #1 entertainment country in the world. Just a few odd subpar effects here and there where the lighting/blending wasn't 100% perfect, but still very engaging and pleasant to watch.
If you also watch it in the original French language as I did myself (with subtitles if you don't actually speak French), you'll also be a lot more immersed into the original story and the intended setting. Let's be clear, 'La Belle et la Bête' is a French fairytale which is also set in regional France, so needless to say, all those actors with a strong British accent in the American version didn't exactly pay a rightful tribute to the original tale for me. In this particular case, I say go French or go home, haha.
Plot and narrative
I guess you'll already see a pattern emerging here: the American version was extremely childish and simplistic compared to the Franco-German version. Inevitably, both versions ended up telling the exact same story, but the way a tale is told can still massively impact your appreciation of it. So what's the main theme of Beauty and the Beast exactly? Easy, appearances can sometimes be misleading and true love toward someone often requires deeper scrutiny.
The American version miserably failed at the whole 'digging deeper' aspect of that universal narrative: Beauty feels threatened by Beast (well kinda) until Beast saves her from a few wolves and she abruptly/radically changes her perspective toward him. In the Franco-German version, Beauty's affection is much more of a slow-burn: Beast's intentions are a lot more obscure and sketchy, Beauty is a lot more wary and reluctant toward him, and the romantic development is spread through the entirety of the movie in an engaging 'one step back, two steps forward' fashion. Moreover, both characters are significantly more fleshed out: Beast appears a lot more villainous and menacing by bitterly conforming his personality to his hideous appearance, while Beauty inevitably has to transcend her superficial appeal to put her foot down and resolve her unfortunate predicament.
As well, the whole movie felt a lot less formulaic than most American productions, which all seem to be built on the exact same profit-making frame and invariably end up being so goddamn clichéd and predictable. The only moment where the Franco-German version somehow felt a bit cheesy is near the end where there's an action sequence featuring gigantic live statues, but even that wasn't all that bad and still rather original and refreshing.
Bonus comparison: Emma Watson vs Léa Seydoux
Don't get me wrong, I happen to love Emma Watson: she's immensely talented, she manages to be both cute and gorgeous simultaneously, and she even vaguely resembles my girlfriend. But damn, Léa Seydoux. Léa Seydoux! Who could potentially resist that perplexing vulnerable-yet-blasé air which those French actresses always seem to master so wonderfully without even trying. And let me remind you, she was the sexy Bond girl in the latest movie Spectre. Spending a night with her would concurrently scratch three items on every sane man's list of sexual fantasies: a seductive Bond girl, an upscale French model, and an adorable little princess. I actually got tired of constantly biting my lips while watching that movie with my girlfriend and at one point I just inadvertently exclaimed: "Sorry to say, but I'd trade you for a cute little French princess in a fucking instant". To which my girlfriend cleverly retorted: "Well buddy, I'd trade you for a hideous beast in a fucking instant too". Ouch!
Seriously though, the movie stars Léa Seydoux and Vincent Cassel, two great actors who really elevated the film beyond my initial expectations.
The verdict
Let me be clear, that film neither was the greatest in the history of cinema nor completely blew me away. However, considering that the American version ended up being one of the most successful movies ever and that to me the Franco-German one was in fact superior in just about every way, I thought I'd offer credit to that unrecognized underdog. This isn't a movie that you will watch on the edge of your seat nor that will utterly transform your life, but if you're looking for something to transport you into a dreamy contemplative mood while reliving a universal parable, that version of Beauty and the Beast will definitely achieve that for you, with an extra-dose of exoticism if you happen to watch it in the original French language.
If I had to provide a rating where 5/10 would be an average score representing an uneventful movie that's neither deplorable nor praiseworthy, I'd give the American version a generous 4/10, while the Franco-German version would earn a 6.5/10 coming from me. Here's the trailer for those interested:
Quote by SereneProdigy
Beauty and the Beast stuff
I Haven't seen the 2014 version but I'm downloading it as I type this. (I just hope that I can get it with English subtitles.)
I agree with SR's assessment of the new B and B. It's just Disney using brand recognition to peddle the same story to a new audience using updated technology.
And that's fine. That's what Disney does. They aren't exactly known for original ideas... They borrow intellectual properties and make them more accessible to the masses. Can anyone name any original thing that Disney has done since Mickey Mouse?
And I agree. Emma Watson? I enjoy her. But as Belle? I don't see it. She's attractive but she's not "Helen of Troy" attractive, which is kind of what this role asks for.
I love fairy tales. Not the Disney-fied fairy tales but the original Germanic and French tales that incorporated mythology and history to construct a very dark narrative that delves into the darkness of the human condition. I continue to believe that these are an untapped resource when it comes to modern entertainment.
People once thought that "comics" were for kids, yet "comic movies" (side note: I hate that term since comics are a medium and not a genre) have proven to be a financial boon for the modern entertainment industry.
If you take something that people have an emotional and nostalgic connection with... and update it... you can make gold.
With the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, every other major studio is trying to replicate that success instead of developing their own ideas. Adult themed fairy tales won't sell Happy Meals, but if they could take one and use the same themes that have made it stand the test of 300 hundred years....
I'd love to see a modern take on "The Juniper Tree," or a Hansel and Gretel tale that takes place during the siege of Leningrad when cannibals were snatching children off the streets.
They wont make a billion dollars, but I still believe this is an untapped resource when it comes to the entertainment industry.
Cryptic Vigilante
Quote by DamonX
I Haven't seen the 2014 version but I'm downloading it as I type this. (I just hope that I can get it with English subtitles.)
Hah, I'm feeling quite a bit of pressure now. Please don't crucify me if my recommendation only end up wasting 2 hours of your life.
Seriously though, it's exactly as I wrote it in my review: it's definitely not a movie that will utterly stupefy you (well I highly doubt it at least), but it's certainly worth watching simply to compare it to the American version. I must admit, reading all the praise that American critics wrote about the rather lackluster American film after watching it myself kinda pissed me off; Americans should stop eulogizing their own culture all the frigging time and realize that sometimes other cultures can produce twice the accomplishments with a quarter of the resources. Just keep in mind that it's mostly a 'contemplative' movie rather than something that will keep you on your toes or profoundly challenge you, the kind of movie where you simply enjoy relaxing in your sofa while a pleasant piece of cinema is unfolding on your screen. Pretty much like the American film was for that matter, just imagine a more sophisticated version of it.
And I actually appreciated Emma Watson in the American version myself; she might in fact be the only rare thing that I valued in the whole film. Her singing parts particularly impressed me, I totally had to make a Google search afterward to verify if it was truly her voice that we could hear singing. She definitely has that 'part little girl, part graceful lady' appearance to her, so I believe that she was a perfect choice for the overall childish tone that Disney was aiming for. But yeah, Léa Seydoux though (swoons).
I'm not really in the mood to be overly exhaustive about it (I guess it's your lucky day Damon), but I completely agree with your take about fairytales however. I highly do cherish those timeless 'tales' myself, as opposed to random stories they sharply illustrate universal aspects of human nature. Their childlike simplicity is often their whole beauty, in my opinion. Just think about how a tale like Robin Hood is such a huge part of our cultural consciousness: there's some form of truth/virtue in all those tales that's been treasured and that's going to keep being treasured for hundreds of years to come. And as you mentioned, comics are practically a modern version of all that. I'm extremely biased toward Batman myself because the parallels that I can personally establish with him are virtually endless, but to me he captures a parable that's just as substantial as the parable of Robin Hood, Beauty and the Beast, or The Ugly Duckling.
Now please let's move away from this discussion as contemplating mushy fairytales with a guy of my age on a sex-oriented website could start to feel awkward pretty fucking quick, haha. Okay, I'm admittedly still rather impatient to read what you'll have to say about the Franco-German version of the movie. Just one more post will be tolerated however...
Active Ink Slinger
Just wanted to say that often times I find movie reviews especially conflicting ones a hell of a lot more entertaining than some of the films.
Love is the answer, love is a flower you gotta let it grow - John Lennon
Quote by SereneProdigy
Hah, I'm feeling quite a bit of pressure now. Please don't crucify me if my recommendation only end up wasting 2 hours of your life.
I watch a lot of movies and I rarely feel like I've wasted my time. I can usually glean some value out of what I watch. I can appreciate everything from the music to the set design.
Maybe you'll enjoy the New Mulan that they are making. The actually cut out all the musical numbers which is kind of a bummer for me. There's s song in the original that I do a punk cover of when I play live. Great song and great 80s style training montage.
My neighbors love when I play this song drunk on a Friday night with my off-tune accoustic Martin.
6 Balloons is a short film currently playing on Netflix.
I say "short film" because it runs just over an hour. I think that Short films have been a very neglected aspect of film. They have their own categories in the Oscars, yet they are pretty much inaccessible to the general public.
Movies like this will never make it in theaters, because nobody wants to pay a bunch of money to watch an hour long film at the cinema.
But streaming platforms are perfect for short films.
As for this actual movie.... Abbie Jacobson plays the sister of heroin addict (played by Dave Franco). Most movies that deal with addiction focus on the addict, but this one focuses on how addiction affects the people on the periphery. It's not a "feel good" movie but it's an extremely good representation of heroin addiction and how it affects the people around the addict.
The run time is just over an hour so check it out on Netflix.