Jake Gittes

Inception is very good and more daring in its storytelling than 98% of blockbusters, which I think it sometimes doesn't get enough credit for. But after three viewings, I'm also not sure what's left there for me. I could rewatch The Matrix on loop.

Dem CGI ghosts.

This one really didn't age very well.

Has this stalled?

I definitely agree about Thurman, and hell, Clooney was a perfectly good choice for the campy Adam West Batman. It's the writing and directing that fucked everything up.

Lol. Just watched this for the first time since '08. It's a masterpiece of fluid editing and visual effects - which, because they are so stylized, haven't aged a day and will endure a lot better than the "realistic" CGI of most blockbusters - and, even more importantly, it doesn't have a single ironic or cynical bone in its cinematic body, which counts for more with each passing week. The plotting definitely isn't perfect (though this is only limited to the whole business with the Japanese company), but I hardly cared - it grabbed me right from that beautiful opening sequence, more specifically from the bit with Speed drawing smashing cars and the classroom around him turning into a race track. One of the main things that makes me admire the Wachowskis is that they're completely unafraid to go for pure, honest emotion, and in this movie they are basically doing it for two straight hours. I was completely won over.

Those are all great except Kafka (which I haven't seen), but my favorite Soderbergh has to be Schizopolis. It's hilarious. Also The Informant! remains my pick for Matt Damon's best performance. I gotta get around to The Knick one of these days.

nm

Nic Cage in most of the bad movies he's done.

Crowe gets a lifetime pass for LA Confidential and The Insider alone. If that's not the work of an excellent actor I don't know what is.

Total flop, no question about it. We all know a movie is only successful if it breaks into all-time top 10.

Birdman is still more likely to win BP. This year's race is now resembling the 2007 one where Atonement won Globe and BAFTA while No Country won PGA, DGA and the Oscar (though Atonement was much less of a threat than Boyhood is considering Joe Wright wasn't nominated for Best Director).

First of all it's not even a gimmick, second of all why does it matter what some abstract person with no knowledge of the context would think of the film, and also how do you know that's what they would think, and finally how much time has to pass before anyone watching the film becomes aware of what's going on and what Linklater's up to? If you think the movie isn't great, just say why, don't hide behind this entirely pointless line of thinking. No one's getting "caught up" in Boyhood being shot over 12 years because Boyhood not only can't work, it probably can't exist at all without being shot over 12 years. It's the film's entire backbone, no shit it's not great when someone doesn't take that into consideration. (Birdman, meanwhile, would work fine if shot/edited conventionally; if there's a gimmicky movie in this year's race, it's this one).

Very few arguments are more pointless and bullshit than "take away an essential part of why movie X is so good, and see how it's really not that good!"

So are we talking "great" films or merely "good"?

To me it's not a great movie if it has a bad performance in it.

I will probably watch this someday.

Fuck this.

LEGO, The Guest both twice.

Argh

Yes please.

That Guy mode on Park Chan Wook directed Oldboy, didn't star in it That Guy mode off

YO HOMIE

I know what you mean, and I myself have very little patience for the type of bland, self-celebratory, Oscar-chasing biopics. (There are much worse movies out there, but if you fail, at least do it in interesting way, not by being mediocre and forgettable). But they are really only a tiny fraction of the genre, unfortunately they just tend to be the most popular. If you want an antidote to these, even from last year there's at least one in MR. TURNER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1wldsq8_8