What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (8 Viewers)

Take Shelter:

REALLY dug this movie. Thought Michael Shannon was great in this. The ending undercut some of the rest of the movie for me, but still well worth the viewing. Would love to read people's take on the movie and the ending. I am still thinking about this one a couple days later, which is always a good sign. 8/10
The trailers for this look awesome. I think I might move it to the top of the queue.
 
Dog Day Afternoon - 7/10

I actually liked this more than the rating might indicate. I don't generally like the "grittiness" of movies made during this time (didn't care at all for The French Connection) but in this case it worked because it served as a metaphor for Sonny.

The phone conversations that Sonny has with Leon and his wife (particularly the latter) are top notch drama - which has to be extremely difficult because all they're doing is talking over the phone.

 
I finally got around to seeing Elite Squad. I saw Elite Squad 2 last month and they told me it didn't matter which I saw first. they were mistaken. Elite Squad puts a lot of the characters and situations of Elite Squad 2 into context. 2 is quite a bit better, but the original is a necessary preamble. See both. In order.



ES 3.2

ES2 4.2/5 stars
Recently watched Elite Squad 2 on Netflix. I was wary of the cheesy title and the fact that it is a sequel, but this was a excellent. I definitely recommend this movie to those that enjoyed City of God or basically any crime thriller. I'll be on the look out for the original.Also saw in the past few weeks:

Wet Hot American Summer - this cult favorite has great comedic cast, but I had very few laughs. Looks like they had a lot of fun making it though.

Drive - solid Hollywood action film, not sure that it quite deserved its critical accolades. Little character development and cheesy soundtrack were the major negatives.

Daybreakers - there was a lot of potential with a really intriguing premise - a world where vampires dominate and a declining human population means imminent starvation - but the filmmakers chose to emphasize special effects over story, character, and dialogue. Willem Dafoe in particular had some real clunkers for lines.

13 Assassins - exciting martial arts film owing a lot to the Seven Samurai. Great prolonged battle scene dominates the last third of the movie.

Amadeus - well-acted dramatization of Mozart and his relationship with contemporary composer Salieri. Well paced for a three hour film, the actor portraying Salieri was excellent.

 
American Pie - Reunion: Same as the first. Some good laughs, some stuff pretty forced but overall worth the watch if you liked the first. 3/5
 
Watched this thing called Cleanskin starring Sean Bean but really it was way more focused on the terrorist bomber he is chasing, and his personal history with a London Al Qaeda cell and his white English love interest

I noticed it a conspicuously low rating on RT but I watched it anyway, then as I was watching it I wondered why the reviews were so bad because it seemed like a perfectly solid cop vs terrorist thriller. Then the end happened and it was all very absurd and :tinfoilhat: so I guess that's why everybody hated it.

 
"The Band's Visit" A police ceremonial band from Egypt, in Israel for a cultural exchange, ends up in a desert town far from anywhere and is taken on mercy by the bored, cynical residents. A long night's journey marked with comedy, human nature, and bittersweet reality. Richly entertaining, with sympathetic performances by Sasson Gabai as the bandleader and Ronit Elkabetz as the owner of a local cafe. Written and directed by Eran Kolirin. Was at Ebertfest 2008.
This is a pretty spot on review. This movie did human nature and bittersweet reality just about as good as any movie I've seen in recent memory. Some pretty great acting performances all around as well. Still, I thought the comedic parts was few and far between outside the scenes at the roller rink. And although it was engrossing, I didn't really find myself richly entertained. Still definitely worth a watch for foreign film buffs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Thin Red Line

I'm a huge fan of this film, it's one of the most beautiful ever made both visually and thematically. One of my all time favorites. Just bought and watched the Criterion Collection blu-ray and it looks like the film was done yesterday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Thin Red Line

I'm a huge fan of this film, it's one of the most beautiful ever made both visually and thematically. One of my all time favorites. Just bought and watched the Criterion Collection blu-ray and it looks like the film was done yesterday.
i love this movie, too, but then i am an ardent malick fan. what i like about this film and "days of heaven" is that he gets the tension of conflict right. that's what makes them such compelling films for me. i felt like "badlands" was a touch too light while his later films can be too ponderous or unfocused.
 
Spiderman 3:

This is one of my least favorite mainstream super hero movies. Just seems to get everything wrong. The first two were great and really did a good job by sticking to one villain, but this one felt the need to jam 3 in there, plus add another female interest, plus add the concept of the black Spiderman. Combine this whirlwind of bull#### with the groan-worthy scenes with the emo Peter dancing through the streets and kicking it at the jazz club and it took all my energy not to turn this off. 3/10

 
Spiderman 3:

This is one of my least favorite mainstream super hero movies. Just seems to get everything wrong. The first two were great and really did a good job by sticking to one villain, but this one felt the need to jam 3 in there, plus add another female interest, plus add the concept of the black Spiderman. Combine this whirlwind of bull#### with the groan-worthy scenes with the emo Peter dancing through the streets and kicking it at the jazz club and it took all my energy not to turn this off. 3/10
Pretty sure it is my least favorite.I wasnt too big on them already retaking the series with Andrew Garfield but the previews have looked increasingly better and Im interested now.

 
Spiderman 3:

This is one of my least favorite mainstream super hero movies. Just seems to get everything wrong. The first two were great and really did a good job by sticking to one villain, but this one felt the need to jam 3 in there, plus add another female interest, plus add the concept of the black Spiderman. Combine this whirlwind of bull#### with the groan-worthy scenes with the emo Peter dancing through the streets and kicking it at the jazz club and it took all my energy not to turn this off. 3/10
Pretty sure it is my least favorite.

I wasnt too big on them already retaking the series with Andrew Garfield but the previews have looked increasingly better and Im interested now.
Nothing is as bad as Batman and Robin - that is easily one of the worst movies I've watched. I think Spidey 3 is more in the realm of X-Men: Last Stand, but probably is a notch below that one. I am still on the fence about the new one, but am toying with going on Tuesday afternoon to check it out.

 
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

I went in thinking they would either play it straight or camp it up. It tries to do both and failed miserably fro me. It was too silly to be taken seriously, but too stupid to be funny. The straight to DVD knockoff (Lincoln vs. Zombies or something) was actually better than this bloated crapfest.

1.3/5 stars

 
'KarmaPolice said:
'Kenny Powers said:
'KarmaPolice said:
Spiderman 3:

This is one of my least favorite mainstream super hero movies. Just seems to get everything wrong. The first two were great and really did a good job by sticking to one villain, but this one felt the need to jam 3 in there, plus add another female interest, plus add the concept of the black Spiderman. Combine this whirlwind of bull#### with the groan-worthy scenes with the emo Peter dancing through the streets and kicking it at the jazz club and it took all my energy not to turn this off. 3/10
Pretty sure it is my least favorite.

I wasnt too big on them already retaking the series with Andrew Garfield but the previews have looked increasingly better and Im interested now.
Nothing is as bad as Batman and Robin - that is easily one of the worst movies I've watched. I think Spidey 3 is more in the realm of X-Men: Last Stand, but probably is a notch below that one. I am still on the fence about the new one, but am toying with going on Tuesday afternoon to check it out.
Very true, although I was more thinking about comic/superhero movies circa 2000 or since Spiderman kickstarted the genre, which I believe it did IIRC.That said, Batman & Robin approaches so bad its funny/entertaining territory. So does Batman Forever, and the first 2 Burton Batmans arent too far behind them really.

 
First Bond flick Ive ever seen....never had any interest until now.
IN before you are crucified.
:ph34r: Is there a crucification smiley?I just saw Casino Royale as well. :X

Some of the reviews I read praised it as being more thoughtful, less cartoonish version of Bond... really? I thought it made next to no sense, was badly written, painfully boring, had so many WTF moments it was all we could do to keep watching it. Not to mention more endings than LOR3. Craig was as wooden as the crucifix the above poster shoudl get nailed to- although I think most of the problem was with the way his character was written.

I loved the other movie with the same name. I won't even call this a remake- as it only shared a ludicrous version of Le Chiffre in common and frigging Texas Hold'em instead of Baccarat. If I wanted to watch Texas Hold'em, I'd put on ESPN2, not pay money for a terrible movie.

I would recommend this movie to nobody.
I'm happy to see I'm not alone on this. I'm honestly shocked that this film was critically lauded, as it's literally like dozens of other action movies of the past 10 years that get panned. I really don't get how the screenwriters can say they went for a more realistic Bond film, because that sure as #### didn't show on screen. There was no realism during the parkour chase up a crane, none during the car chase at the airport, none during the poker game, and definitely none during the shootout where Bond exhibits how he's invincible to sub-machine gun bullets if he's in full sprint. The 45 minute denouement was also hard to sit through. As far as I'm concerned, the only redeeming quality of the film was the title sequence which was very cool.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Kenny Powers said:
Caught Matrix Revolutions last night for the first time since, well, probably since it first came out on DVD. Meh. The whole philosphical part of this story just lost me. Not because it was hard to follow, although it was at times, but just because it felt like they tried too hard sometimes. And the nod to Christ at the end was meh as well. I think. Frankly, I don't think you can watch this one without watching the second one right before. They should have been one movie. Or not.

Yeah, I'm pretty agnostic on the whole thing really. Kind of.
Well they essentially are. At least they were intended that way.
I honestly dont remember anything from the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies besides disliking them, although now that I think about it Im not sure Ive even seen at least 1 of them in its entirety. Sort or interested in seeing them again, preferrably back to back.
Reloaded is worth seeing again just for the highway chase.
 
'Time Kibitzer said:
"The Band's Visit" A police ceremonial band from Egypt, in Israel for a cultural exchange, ends up in a desert town far from anywhere and is taken on mercy by the bored, cynical residents. A long night's journey marked with comedy, human nature, and bittersweet reality. Richly entertaining, with sympathetic performances by Sasson Gabai as the bandleader and Ronit Elkabetz as the owner of a local cafe. Written and directed by Eran Kolirin. Was at Ebertfest 2008.
This is a pretty spot on review. This movie did human nature and bittersweet reality just about as good as any movie I've seen in recent memory. Some pretty great acting performances all around as well. Still, I thought the comedic parts was few and far between outside the scenes at the roller rink. And although it was engrossing, I didn't really find myself richly entertained. Still definitely worth a watch for foreign film buffs.
Love this movie.
 
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Took me a little bit to understand what was going on, but I ended up really liking this. One of Jim Carrey's best IMO.

 
Gamer....Just chilling, throwing a few back right now and this was pretty much the only thing on TV worth watching. Wasnt expecting anything great, just a solid action movie with Leonidas. Wow, this was terrible. The action was few and far between and non-sensical. It had this schticky futuristic world type of thing was one of the worst things Ive ever seen on film. I may have turned it off after 20 minutes if it was getting my full attention, but it didnt last longer than 45 minutes as I had to turn it off once Terry Crews started singing I Got No Strings (from Pinocchio)....0/5
 
Goon (2011)

Seann William Scott plays the character Doug. A dim-witted but kind-hearted bouncer that finds his true calling as an ice hockey enforcer. If you liked "Slap Shot" you will love this movie. Goon is an enjoyable sports film. :thumbup:

3.5/5
Yeah this was pretty good. I'm not any more sold on Stifler as an actor than I was before but it was a fun B movie with an excellent supporting cast. Jay Baruchel, Liev Schrieber, Alison Pill all had good roles, and most of his teammates were pretty good too.
Seann William Scott has quietly made a pretty good acting career since American Pie, almost solely in comedies. I have no clue how much money he's made, but Id guess its been pretty good and I wouldnt be surprised to see him in comedies 20 years from now.Jay Baruchel also wrote Goon, which has my interested as well since he's usually solid. Looking forward to seeing this.

ETA: Just realized this is streaming on Netflix. I found at least 1 thing to do this weekend :popcorn:
As many others stated - really enjoyed this movie, not the funniest movie out there but a very solid flick.For any one with Amazon Prime it's part of prime streaming :thumbup:

 
Dog Day Afternoon - 7/10

I actually liked this more than the rating might indicate. I don't generally like the "grittiness" of movies made during this time (didn't care at all for The French Connection) but in this case it worked because it served as a metaphor for Sonny.

The phone conversations that Sonny has with Leon and his wife (particularly the latter) are top notch drama - which has to be extremely difficult because all they're doing is talking over the phone.
Interesting. That's a perfect explanation of why movies from that era are my favorite of all-time.Glad you enjoyed the flick. Second the recommendation of Serpico.

 
Goon (2011)

Seann William Scott plays the character Doug. A dim-witted but kind-hearted bouncer that finds his true calling as an ice hockey enforcer. If you liked "Slap Shot" you will love this movie. Goon is an enjoyable sports film. :thumbup:

3.5/5
Yeah this was pretty good. I'm not any more sold on Stifler as an actor than I was before but it was a fun B movie with an excellent supporting cast. Jay Baruchel, Liev Schrieber, Alison Pill all had good roles, and most of his teammates were pretty good too.
Seann William Scott has quietly made a pretty good acting career since American Pie, almost solely in comedies. I have no clue how much money he's made, but Id guess its been pretty good and I wouldnt be surprised to see him in comedies 20 years from now.Jay Baruchel also wrote Goon, which has my interested as well since he's usually solid. Looking forward to seeing this.

ETA: Just realized this is streaming on Netflix. I found at least 1 thing to do this weekend :popcorn:
As many others stated - really enjoyed this movie, not the funniest movie out there but a very solid flick.For any one with Amazon Prime it's part of prime streaming :thumbup:
Thought the movie was mildly entertaining despite the horrible performance by Sean Willliam Scott. He passed goon territory and went into mentally handicapped.
 
The Poker House

Saw a clip on YouTube so I went to rent this. Interesting and sad. In the future this could be what The Professional is to Natalie Portman. Jennifer Lawrence, Sophia Bairley and Chloe Grace Moretz each have roles in this.

 
Gamer....Just chilling, throwing a few back right now and this was pretty much the only thing on TV worth watching. Wasnt expecting anything great, just a solid action movie with Leonidas. Wow, this was terrible. The action was few and far between and non-sensical. It had this schticky futuristic world type of thing was one of the worst things Ive ever seen on film. I may have turned it off after 20 minutes if it was getting my full attention, but it didnt last longer than 45 minutes as I had to turn it off once Terry Crews started singing I Got No Strings (from Pinocchio)....0/5
Agreed. Awful on every level. Even as a cult piece for being awful.
 
I have a general movie-business question.

I recall reading that, when Rocky Balboa was being made, Stallone couldn't use Carl Weathers' likeness or old footage in the film because the two of them couldn't agree on a price - Stallone going so far as to call Weathers "Apollo Greed".

It made me wonder - who actually "owns" a film? I had always assumed (wrongly, it appears) that an actor signed a contract to play a role and that was the end of it (unless he negotiated part of the action). But it seems that they get something like "property rights" to their roles? Or is it more like royalties? It's curious to me that Weathers can demand money for footage shot 30 years before in a film he didn't (I assume) "own".

 
I have a general movie-business question.

I recall reading that, when Rocky Balboa was being made, Stallone couldn't use Carl Weathers' likeness or old footage in the film because the two of them couldn't agree on a price - Stallone going so far as to call Weathers "Apollo Greed".

It made me wonder - who actually "owns" a film? I had always assumed (wrongly, it appears) that an actor signed a contract to play a role and that was the end of it (unless he negotiated part of the action). But it seems that they get something like "property rights" to their roles? Or is it more like royalties? It's curious to me that Weathers can demand money for footage shot 30 years before in a film he didn't (I assume) "own".
I believe your question is answered due to Crispin Glover and his role in Back to the Future.
Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[6]
In other words, an actor owns the role when cast. Any likeness of that character is subject to compensation for the original actor.
 
I have a general movie-business question.

I recall reading that, when Rocky Balboa was being made, Stallone couldn't use Carl Weathers' likeness or old footage in the film because the two of them couldn't agree on a price - Stallone going so far as to call Weathers "Apollo Greed".

It made me wonder - who actually "owns" a film? I had always assumed (wrongly, it appears) that an actor signed a contract to play a role and that was the end of it (unless he negotiated part of the action). But it seems that they get something like "property rights" to their roles? Or is it more like royalties? It's curious to me that Weathers can demand money for footage shot 30 years before in a film he didn't (I assume) "own".
I believe your question is answered due to Crispin Glover and his role in Back to the Future.
Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[6]
In other words, an actor owns the role when cast. Any likeness of that character is subject to compensation for the original actor.
Interesting - thanks. Wonder how much Weathers wanted. I'm guessing he would only have been used in flashbacks since Creed died in IV (unless they did some kind of hokey dream sequence with current Weathers in an actual role).
 
Saw Wrath of the Titans and Safe House this weekend.

Safe House was Denzel playing his usual character of late. Reynolds actually did OK with the action but all in all nothing new or all that exciting here. The girlfriend Nora Arnezeder was looking good though.

Wrath of the Titans was a disappointment. I wasn't expecting a lot but I was looking for more action and humor. I was disappointed. I will say the effects were pretty good. And my wife liked it enough to watch it twice.

 
Watched The Perfect Game on Netflix.....really enjoyed it....not the best made movie, but great story that I did not know....recommended.

 
I have a general movie-business question.

I recall reading that, when Rocky Balboa was being made, Stallone couldn't use Carl Weathers' likeness or old footage in the film because the two of them couldn't agree on a price - Stallone going so far as to call Weathers "Apollo Greed".

It made me wonder - who actually "owns" a film? I had always assumed (wrongly, it appears) that an actor signed a contract to play a role and that was the end of it (unless he negotiated part of the action). But it seems that they get something like "property rights" to their roles? Or is it more like royalties? It's curious to me that Weathers can demand money for footage shot 30 years before in a film he didn't (I assume) "own".
Stallone should have offered to help him get a stew going.
 
Spiderman

I thought it was pretty solid. I liked that it was more character-based and didn't have as silly of villans as the others. Overall, I think I liked it just a tad more than the Toby ones.

3.7/5

 
SpidermanI thought it was pretty solid. I liked that it was more character-based and didn't have as silly of villans as the others. Overall, I think I liked it just a tad more than the Toby ones.3.7/5
Surprisingly I have been hearing pretty much decent to good reviews across the board. I was expecting it to be panned. Might have to check it out.
 
Interesting:

Michael Fassbender Decides He Would Like to be In an Assassin's Creed Movie

It's been a while since we heard about Ubisoft's little film studio project, which the video game publisher planned to use to independently fund films based on the company's various franchises. We also hadn't heard much about that Assassin's Creed movie idea in a while, at least not since it was first kicked around. Now we have updates on both of those things, and they come along with a massive, turgid Fassboner.Yes, Michael Fassbender, the actor best known for his roles in films like Prometheus, X-Men: First Class, Inglourious Basterds, and Shame, has signed on with his own production company to co-produce and star in Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed adaptation, according to Variety. His DMC Films company will be working in direct tandem with Ubisoft Motion Pictures to raise capital. Sony had once been talked about as a potential distributor for the film, and may still be involved.

We roll our eyes when we talk about video game movies, and often with good reason. However, Fassbender's involvement in this particular adaptation does give one some reason to be excited. On top of being a top-flight actor, Fassbender's pretty choosy about his projects. Similarly, one gets the impression Ubisoft's being pretty protective about how this franchise is brought to the big screen, so who knows? We might even get a decent movie out of this. It'll depend heavily on who is hired to write and direct, of course, but this is as solid a starting point for a video game movie as I've ever read about.

Of course, we have absolutely no idea what portions of the AC mythology will be plundered for the screenplay, nor do we know which character Fassbender will be playing. Altair? Ezio? Probably not this new Connor guy, but hey, who knows? As long as Michael Fassbender is all, "Uh uh uh" with a hidden blade at some point, that's all that really matters, right?
 
The Pirates! Band of Misfits

I haven't seen this movie mentioned at all, and it was hilarious. Wallace and Gromit fans should definitely see it. Very funny. It's the perfect movie to see with your kids. They'll enjoy it, and there's a level of humor that will appeal to adults, as well.

 
The Pirates! Band of Misfits

I haven't seen this movie mentioned at all, and it was hilarious. Wallace and Gromit fans should definitely see it. Very funny. It's the perfect movie to see with your kids. They'll enjoy it, and there's a level of humor that will appeal to adults, as well.
Got a bit boring in the middle. My daughter thought it was meh... It was a tad too long but we did enjoy it overall
 
For someone who's never seen Apocalypse Now, what's the better version to see, the 2:30min original or 3:15min redux? The length of the redux wouldn't really bother me as long as the added scenes are quality and add to the story.

 
For someone who's never seen Apocalypse Now, what's the better version to see, the 2:30min original or 3:15min redux? The length of the redux wouldn't really bother me as long as the added scenes are quality and add to the story.
I liked both. The extra footage isn't essential, but it adds interesting material. The Onion AV Club lists redux as an improvement:

The kindest cut: 14-plus movies improved by directors' cuts

1. Apocalypse Now (1979)

It's hard to say Apocalypse Now Redux is "better" than Apocalypse Now, since the original is a revered film classic, and the 2001 re-release inserts 49 minutes of footage that mostly make an already episodic film even more episodic. But the film has always been about a stage-by-stage journey to the primordial heart of humanity's worst impulses. (It's based, after all, on Heart Of Darkness.) By reinstating much of the cut footage—particularly a long, lazy sequence set on a French plantation—director Francis Ford Coppola and editor Walter Murch make that journey even more explicit, as the crew of the ship at the story's center is taken further into the symbolic past, with more and more layers of civilization being stripped away with every encounter. That episodic nature suggests that Apocalypse Now could even be as long as Coppola's earliest cuts (reportedly in the five-hour range) and still be as hallucinatory and mesmerizing as it ever was.
 
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Took me a little bit to understand what was going on, but I ended up really liking this. One of Jim Carrey's best IMO.
I totally dug that movie.director also did a good ep of flight of the conchords.

if you had to make that decision, would you prefer the pain of having loved and lost, or would you erase those memories so that you'd never have loved at all?

 
'jdoggydogg said:
Interesting:

Michael Fassbender Decides He Would Like to be In an Assassin's Creed Movie

It's been a while since we heard about Ubisoft's little film studio project, which the video game publisher planned to use to independently fund films based on the company's various franchises. We also hadn't heard much about that Assassin's Creed movie idea in a while, at least not since it was first kicked around. Now we have updates on both of those things, and they come along with a massive, turgid Fassboner.Yes, Michael Fassbender, the actor best known for his roles in films like Prometheus, X-Men: First Class, Inglourious Basterds, and Shame, has signed on with his own production company to co-produce and star in Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed adaptation, according to Variety. His DMC Films company will be working in direct tandem with Ubisoft Motion Pictures to raise capital. Sony had once been talked about as a potential distributor for the film, and may still be involved.

We roll our eyes when we talk about video game movies, and often with good reason. However, Fassbender's involvement in this particular adaptation does give one some reason to be excited. On top of being a top-flight actor, Fassbender's pretty choosy about his projects. Similarly, one gets the impression Ubisoft's being pretty protective about how this franchise is brought to the big screen, so who knows? We might even get a decent movie out of this. It'll depend heavily on who is hired to write and direct, of course, but this is as solid a starting point for a video game movie as I've ever read about.

Of course, we have absolutely no idea what portions of the AC mythology will be plundered for the screenplay, nor do we know which character Fassbender will be playing. Altair? Ezio? Probably not this new Connor guy, but hey, who knows? As long as Michael Fassbender is all, "Uh uh uh" with a hidden blade at some point, that's all that really matters, right?
I know nothing about Assassin's Creed other than some commercial I just saw with George Washington turning loose some super ninja to kill Brits in the Revolutionary War. Think it'll make a good movie?
 
I went in with very low expectations but I kinda enjoyed Tree of Life. I turned it off the first time after about 20 minutes but that was more because I just wasn't in the mood for it. I'm sure I didn't grasp on all the themes he was trying to address but it was a nice visual experience. I did fast-forward through much of the beach scene at the end though. 2.5/5

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top