This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The method and action of the killing spree was entirely irrelevant. They could have recreated Columbine to exact detail and it wouldn't have contributed anything to the film. It was all about the set-up, realization and aftermath.I agree, this one definitely isn't for everyone, I have said that from the beginning.
Already mentioned its RT score but here's the link to all top critics and their opinions:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/we_need_to_talk_about_kevin/reviews/?type=top_critics
Funny, here I am thinking that you demand less.The method was a minor detail but the director actually dedicated a good deal of on screen time plausibly setting up the logic of it.
This gave him that extra bit of #### you to punish his mother with.
Yes, but I'm right and you're wrong.Derp.
I read those critics and I understand what they (and you) are saying but ultimately it's subjective - hell, no one is going to convince me that Tree of Life was a good movie. Maybe I got more out of it since I watched the depression double header (Tyrannosaur then this) one night and was in the mind set to watch it.
That's the fun thing about this thread. Lots of opinions. Some poorly reviewed movies get lots of love. Some well reviewed movies don't go over well. What I find most interesting of all is the very strong opinions we have on this movie. It's not like one of us is a Michael Bay fanatic and the other a film snob. Our tastes seem to be relatively similar. C'est la vie.
I liked this movie a lot.
Thanks for the reminder. I haven't seen it yet, and I wonder if Mrs. Dogg can handle it. Is it a psychological thriller or a horror thriller? The wife can't take the latter.
I agree that the end was weak. But I so enjoyed the first 80% of this movie, I recommend it.
I've always liked Ebert, but every critic makes bad calls that look worse and worse as the years go by. Rolling Stone whiffed on several bands that ended up being very highly regarded.
it's good. it kind of hung around my head for a few days actually. it isn't disturbing but it engaging psychologically.
That one got a lot of love in NYC (from critics and my friends). The wife had no interest, so I lose.
It received pretty much positive reviews all around in this thread.
Ok cool - thanks. It was tough searching for it.
Tell me more...'Chaka said:
I liked it. Could have done with less Seth Rogen, but it was fine otherwise.
Chappie James was a very close friend of my family growing up and was probably the first male role model that I looked up to when I was a child. I still miss him deeply and think of him often.
Wow. Quite a man.
Haneke is pretty easily one of the best directors in the business at the moment imo, and he just won another Palm d'Or a few days ago with his new film. I still need to catch up on a bunch of his first ones.
Same. I liked Thin Red Line more than SPR from the first watch, surprisingly. Even moreso maybe since I was probably 15-16 when I saw each for the first time.'KarmaPolice said:
Does that make sense?
No, I lied.'TexanFan02 said:
Worth watching even if you don't drink just to see how lobbyists control our politicians.
Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
I did have subtitles on. But unless you read this type of stuff on a regular basis it still takes too long to truly digest and I wasn't going to pause and examine every single line of dialogue, particularly when they also maintained much of the olde English idiomatic language as well. So not only were they speaking in iambic pentameter but using idiom as well. It was a nice effort and Fiennes was great but it was a miss for me.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
Admittedly I'm a subtitle addict and watch most movies with them on.I did have subtitles on. But unless you read this type of stuff on a regular basis it still takes too long to truly digest and I wasn't going to pause and examine every single line of dialogue, particularly when they also maintained much of the olde English idiomatic language as well. So not only were they speaking in iambic pentameter but using idiom as well. It was a nice effort and Fiennes was great but it was a miss for me.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
Admittedly I'm a subtitle addict and watch most movies with them on.I did have subtitles on. But unless you read this type of stuff on a regular basis it still takes too long to truly digest and I wasn't going to pause and examine every single line of dialogue, particularly when they also maintained much of the olde English idiomatic language as well. So not only were they speaking in iambic pentameter but using idiom as well. It was a nice effort and Fiennes was great but it was a miss for me.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
I wasn't talking about reading subtitles on a regular basis (I do that all the time), I was talking about reading (or listening to) olde English idiomatic dialogue presented in iambic pentameter. Like reading a play by Bill Shakespeare.
I don't like reading Shakespeare and I'm not fond of watching the plays either because I miss much of what is said. However, with this movie I got enough out of reading the subtitles to understand what was going on and enjoyed the sound of the dialogue as it was spoken. It was such a great story that from midway through I forgot they were speaking Shakespeare.Admittedly I'm a subtitle addict and watch most movies with them on.I did have subtitles on. But unless you read this type of stuff on a regular basis it still takes too long to truly digest and I wasn't going to pause and examine every single line of dialogue, particularly when they also maintained much of the olde English idiomatic language as well. So not only were they speaking in iambic pentameter but using idiom as well. It was a nice effort and Fiennes was great but it was a miss for me.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
Are we making exceptions for those that purposely screw with the three act structure? Like Red State.
What a grrrreat idea! Never thought of doing that with Bard movies. Excellent.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
But did it really? There are still three clear acts as far as I can remember.
Best example of "ending on a high note".
they were saving what happened next for the beginning of Karate Kid II. "HONK!!!"
My problem was that I was only getting the broad strokes for the first half of the film. Sure it was pretty clear what the story was about but with dialogue of that nature I felt that there were many additional levels of the story that I was missing out on.I don't like reading Shakespeare and I'm not fond of watching the plays either because I miss much of what is said. However, with this movie I got enough out of reading the subtitles to understand what was going on and enjoyed the sound of the dialogue as it was spoken. It was such a great story that from midway through I forgot they were speaking Shakespeare.Admittedly I'm a subtitle addict and watch most movies with them on.I did have subtitles on. But unless you read this type of stuff on a regular basis it still takes too long to truly digest and I wasn't going to pause and examine every single line of dialogue, particularly when they also maintained much of the olde English idiomatic language as well. So not only were they speaking in iambic pentameter but using idiom as well. It was a nice effort and Fiennes was great but it was a miss for me.Did you have subtitles on? I did and loved the movie.Coriolanus - Swing and a miss. There is a reason I prefer to read Shakespeare rather than see his plays performed and that is because, unless it is a regular part of your life, the poetic dialogue is all but incomprehensible unless you have time to sit down and digest it. Cramming a ton of iambic pentameter into a semi-fast paced war film serves little purpose but to make it inaccessible and ultimately boring. It took me a good 1/2-2/3 of the film before I had adjusted enough to the dialogue to really start to pick up the nuance of the exchanges and at that point I wasn't about to rewind the whole thing and start over.
However I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I followed only about half of what was spoken Ralph Fiennes is a freaking tremendous actor. After this I am convinced that he could stand up and read the phone book for ten hours and I would be riveted. A couple of the other actors did well with the dialogue, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave, but Fiennes was the only one who was truly convincing in his delivery...even if I wasn't always sure what he was delivering
The only thing I remember about the 2nd one was that it sucks. The third one is where they rescue the bonzai tree, right? That one was good.And don't even bring up the "jacket on, jacket off" crap.
