nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What have you watched recently? 3D!

johnny_ultimate

You people just keep on watching films, don't you?

We have reached the contractually-mandated 10,000 post limited in thread 2, so here's another one. It's like the first two, but with gimmicky 3D added and a no-name director taking over from the well-known one who directed the first two.

Here's the first thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488699
And the second: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056732038

So... what have you watched recently?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

barrymanilow

Once upon a time in Hollywood

I disliked the Hateful eight so much that I swore I'd never sit through another Tarantino. But in fairness this was a very entertaining film and it wasn't overcooked too much with his trademark over the top nerdy fanboy cinema stylishness. It's star packed but it all works well enough on screen that it doesn't need to be very plot driven.Worth a watch.

decky1

Mule , with Clint Eastwood it's worth a watch , + The Kid western if your into them , great [i thought anyway]

johnny_ultimate

The Naked Emperor's Army Marches On - This has been on my watchlist for years, so was delighted to see it get a Blu-Ray release. The film is a marvel of documentary filmmaking that both tells a shocking, vital story while being a bizarre, brilliant story in its own right. The subject - Okuzaki Kenzo, a 60-something army veteran / ex-con obsessed with uncovering the truth about dark events at the end of WW2 - is a complex and troubling one, who'll happily resort to lying and violence to get to where he needs. The filmmakers themselves have to grapple with when exactly to intervene (or not) as various situations spiral out of all control. Despite the unorthodox methods, the 'divine quest' does unveil some frightening, bleak truths. An essential watch for anyone interested in documentary form.

Journey to the Beginning of Time - pitched somewhere between rollicking adventure movie and educational history lesson, Karel Zeman's is a gorgeous curiosity following a group of boys who travel backwards through time (all they do is row down a river) to experience the various creatures that exist at various points in the distant past. You're here for the glorious stop-motion creatures, which still have a majestic beauty to them despite their primitive nature. But it also proves to be a valuable riposte to 'adventure movie' norms. Here, the peril only rarely rises to the level of mild: what you have instead are characters driven onwards by honest curiosity and a love of good ol' science. What it lacks in the mad vision of Zeman's classic take on Munchausen, it more than makes up for in its admirable, smart innocence.

The Fate of Lee Khan - I have no hesitation calling King Hu cinema's greatest action movie director, so a new re-release of his work is always cause for celebration. This was made after his epic masterpiece Touch of Zen (very possibly the best action film, period) but curiously harks back to his older, lighter fare - indeed, it forms a loose trilogy of sorts with Dragon Inn and Come Drink With Me. And Hu's fingerprints are all over it. Most of the action is set (like those other two films) in an inn, where every worker and reveller appears to have their own motivations and secrets. The film is almost a comedy for the guts of an hour until the arrival of the eponymous warlord Lee Khan, after which the film transforms into a tense, expertly crafted thriller. It's the final act where this enters the stratosphere, with an extended brawl where even the heroes are unusually vulnerable. If it's not peak Hu, it's still a blast: gravity is defied, hidden trampolines are copious, and the general tone wonderfully dynamic.

(Just to say getting to see all three films above is a welcome testament to the endurance of Blu-Ray: to see films like this - hardly the most commercial of ventures - get such lovely releases is to me the ultimate testament to physical media being far, far from dead)

Silence of the Lambs / Married to the Mob - second and first time watch respectively, as I'm on a bit of a Demme kick (although a bit bizarre how hard to find some of his stuff is).

Silence... I watched ages ago, and at the time wasn't young enough to appreciate how smart the film is in terms of perspective. Obviously it's an inspired reversal of the male gaze - often seeing these men through Clarice's perspective. But as a piece of pure tension building it's also a wonderful trick - it lends key scenes this underlying unease and creepiness that at the same time manages to bypass traditional horror movie techniques. It's an unusually low-key, grounded film in many ways (the escape and final confrontation scenes excepted) and it's the clever filmmaking choices that elevate it to something that has rightly endured over nearly three decades now.

Married... I didn't like quite as much as Something Wild, but it shares that DNA. You have this broad, outrageous setup full of caricatures - but Demme brings this uncommonly humanistic perspective that allows the material to rise above that. Packed with idiosyncratic details (not to mention the usual top-class needle drops - always enjoy a Feelies hit), much also hinges on the wonderful Michelle Pfeiffer who is on absolute fire here.

Wounds - Babak Anvari's Under the Shadow was one of the best recent horror films, in large part down to how it took many of the genre's ideas and recontextualised / re-explored them in a different setting (Iran). Friends, it gives me no pleasure to report that his follow-up is not one of the best recent horror films. Some of the imagery is pleasingly grotesque and/or creepy in what feels like a classic J-horror inspired way. But the story is nonsense, and Armie Hammer's character is almost certainly the least likable character in any film I've seen in years. I don't mind an unlikable protagonist if the film goes somewhere with it... but this, sadly, does not go anywhere with it.

Tony EH

'Rambo Last Blood'

I'm tempted just to say that it's mostly rubbish and leave it at that, but it continues to be a source of wonder at just how much life can be dragged out of John Rambo, when his story ended in 1982 on perfectly agreeable terms. But, it's amazing that for 34 years these rubbish movies have been churned out when the quality plummeted off a cliff in 1985 and exploded at the bottom.

This time John Rambo is ensconced on an Arizona farm, where he farts about with horses and rescues people that get into trouble from floods. He works the farm with a woman called Maria and her granddaughter Gabriela, who finds out the whereabouts of her estranged father and she goes off to Mexico to confront him about her abandonment. Obviously this doesn't go well, and subsequent events lead poor Gabriela in sex slavery as a cartel gets hold of her, and bish, bash, bosh, poor old Rambo gets dragged into another little war were he has to become a one man army again.

Anyone familiar with Rambo movies will instantly know what to expect here as there is absolutely nothing new, except perhaps the lack of an exotic setting. Last Blood therefore returns to an American setting like 'First Blood', but that's where its kinship with that film ends. Whereas 'First Blood' was a well made and hugely enjoyable story, 'Rambo Last Blood' is a poorly made farce that makes the other sequels in the series look like masterpieces. The acting is spotty at best, with the incredibly inane dialogue doing the characters no favours and the production looks terribly cheap in many places.

There is some entertainment to be had in the movies's final setting, in which Rambo dispatches the bad guys in a series of tunnels he has constructed under his farm and there is a delightful amount of silly carnage as the cartel's men get shot, chopped and blown to pieces when Rambo channels his inner Kevin McCallister, utilising traps he's made and weapons that he has laying around. But the film outside of this dubious enjoyment is very poorly handled indeed.

Hopefully, this is the last we ever see of John Rambo, which is something that I said after 'Rambo III' in 1988, but this character keeps getting dusted off and dragged through the mud on an all too regular basis, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see another Rambo movie made before Stallone shuffles off his mortal coil.

2/10

'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'

Quentin Tarantino is, without doubt, an accomplished film maker who has a definite style that he stamps upon his work. This style is readily evident in his more recent output than it was in the likes of 'Reservoir Dogs', or 'Jackie Brown' and while quirkily distinctive, it can be quite jarring. Films like 'Inglourious basterds' can throw out history or narrative sense and still be entertaining (although I disliked it immensely). But ultimately they feel worthless. Likewise, something like 'The Hateful Eight', which has a great setup and a brilliant first half, gets ruined by a terrible second half where Tarantino just abandons sense in favour of the ridiculous.

His latest, a story set in the Hollywood hills in 1969, exhibits these quirky traits too, as Tarantino throws the historical record on the fire and constructs his own alternative history, this time concerning the infamous Manson Family's viscous attack on Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and several others, which is used as a backdrop for a tale about Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a TV cowboy who's in the midst of a career crisis and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), Dalton's stunt double and driver. Dalton lives next door to Tate and Polanski, which has significance to the story in the final act.

'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' doesn't really have all that much to say about anything in particular and despite being well acted and directed, its frivolousness results in a very underwhelming conclusion. It's a Quentin Tarantino film, through an through, and will be greeted as such by fans of his work. But, for many others in the audience, it could lead to some head scratching and wondering what it was all supposed to be about.

5/10

'Joker'

Like 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood', Todd Philips's 'Joker' leaves the viewer confused as to why it even exists. But unlike Tarantino's film, which operates in its own singular revisionist universe, 'Joker' is (ostensibly at least) part of a larger universe because it belongs to the Batman story, which makes its destruction of the Batman timeline bizarre and perplexing.

'Joker' is an origin story about Batman's greatest adversary, The Joker, who has been part of the Dark Knight's story since issue No1 of the comic in 1940 and has been front and centre in Batman's fight against crime in the city of Gotham. But the film's main problem is that this Joker cannot possibly be the same Joker that Batman has fought for nearly 80 years, as he meets a ten year old Bruce Wayne half way through the movie, which would make the Joker an OAP by the time Bruce comes of age and embarks upon his crime fighting career. This scene, which feels incredibly ill judged (as are all of the connections with the Wayne family), completely obliterates not just the familiar Batman timeline, but also anything a possible sequel (or sequels) may have to offer should Batman make an appearance at a later date.

This central problem aside, the film itself is a decent attempt to tell a story of a psychopath (played excellently by Joaquin Phoenix) who experiences his final turn and falls into an unrecoverable spin. But, it's nothing we haven't seen before and it's not as well handled here as it has been in other films. The obvious examples being 'Taxi Driver' and 'The King of Comedy', which have been discussed in conjunction with this film since its first appearance.

'Joker' is a depressing look at Arthur Fleck, a 40 something who still lives with his mother in a manky 1970/80's New York (Gotham) apartment which she never appears to leave. She is cared for by Arthur, who also has to make money by getting gigs as a clown in a two bit agency that has him doing work for kids in a hospital one day and holding a sign for a closing down sale the next. His life is something that nobody in their real minds would ever envy and while the viewer can feel a pity for Arthur, he remains quite an unsympathetic character. Over the course of two hours, certain events conspire in Arthur's life that eventually lead to him realising his "true" self and he eventually becomes the titular character.

Phoenix, it has to be said, is very good in the role, although Heath Ledger remains the benchmark. But unlike Ledger's madman, the Joker of this film gets a backstory that unfolds on the screen, even if much of it is obviously unreliable. His mother is competently played by Francis Conroy (of 'American Horror Story' fame), and she does well as a character who possess her own psychological issues and who is clearly an anchor, in the worst possible way, for her son. The secondary characters are all handled satisfactorily too, even if Robert De Niro looks terribly out of place.

It's directed fine by Todd Philips, but there isn't really much to write home about in that department. It's sufficient, while never being outstanding, and it commendably manages to keep its tone throughout. Whether he returns for the inevitable sequel is unclear, and at a billion in box office returns you can bet that there'll be a sequel.

6/10

barrymanilow

IT Chapter Two

I thought this was God awful.

I enjoyed the first one but this is a mess. It's very very long , like Braveheart long. They could have easily edited an hour and a half of unnecessary filler/build up out of it. You really want to build some suspense and keep your Monster/Ghost up your sleeve for the final act but you see so much of Pennywise the clown in the first half hour that you become inoculated against the many many predictable scares.

After a while I was laughing and scoffing at scenes that are supposed to be terror inducing so ended up turning it off. So over the top and rubbish. Pants.

2/10

Homelander

Climax on Netflix. Good film, very unsettling and trippy, watched it after seeking out films in the same vein as the excellent Midsommar. Climax is definitely a bit abstract but a captivating watch, acting is really good considering the entire cast apart from one or two are amateurs. It also has a conventionally conclusive ending, a lot of films of this type often don't and I was wondering whilst watching.

I would give it a 7/10.

Outlaw Pete

Seen Perfect Nanny at the French Film Festival in the IFI.

Eh, bit mad but worth watching all the same.

Also seen On a Magical Night right after it and hated that with a passion. Imaginative but dreadful.

Would have walked out only for the fact that in Screen 1 in the IFI now if you are on the far side you have to walk down to the front row to get out as there's no room behind the back row anymore.

chrislad

barrymanilow wrote: »

Once upon a time in Hollywood

I disliked the Hateful eight so much that I swore I'd never sit through another Tarantino. But in fairness this was a very entertaining film and it wasn't overcooked too much with his trademark over the top nerdy fanboy cinema stylishness. It's star packed but it all works well enough on screen that it doesn't need to be very plot driven.Worth a watch.

I didn't quite dislike the Hateful 8 as much as that, but I was not a big fan. I recently watched this on a plane (not ideal) but it was fairly decent. Not up their with his strongest work, it was a bit slow and plodding in places, but the characters were decent. The last 20 minutes were intense, and did somewhat make up for the slower sections. It's not one I'd watch again, but for very different reasons to Hateful 8.

matrole

Hardest hitting film I've seen in a long time was the strangely titled "Dragged Across Concrete". Came to it completely cold, having absolutely no idea about it whatsoever which I find is really helpful in enjoying a film. Hype and preconceptions are not the film fan's friend.

Fysh

I caught Blue Story tonight and thought it was very good - perhaps lacking a certain polish in some aspects of the direction, but a story told well with good performances, and the bridging sequences add to the sense of location - both through the rap narration and the use of real-world phone footage of gang fights and attacks. Sort of like a more authentic and perhaps nastier sibling to Kidulthood.

shrapnel222

matrole wrote: »

Hardest hitting film I've seen in a long time was the strangely titled "Dragged Across Concrete". Came to it completely cold, having absolutely no idea about it whatsoever which I find is really helpful in enjoying a film. Hype and preconceptions are not the film fan's friend.

In that case check out his first 2 films also. Bone tomahawk is a very hard hitting western and Brawl in cell block 99 is a pretty brutal prison movie. Both are great btw.

Dades

barrymanilow wrote: »

IT Chapter Two

I thought this was God awful.

Much as I hate to say it, I completely agree.

I really liked the first. I have no idea why this was so mundane. After watching it I struggled to put my finger on why it wasn't good, but couldn't. It just wasn't.

Still at a loss.

CastorTroy

I thought it was better than the second part of the Tim Curry one, but that wasn't hard to beat.
I felt it went on too long and could've finished sooner than it did. A lot of padding

Carcharodon

Queen & Slim

Absolutely dreadful, one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a while.
Also one of the most frustrating movies I’ve seen as it had huge potential, the lead actress is excellent but wasted.
So many things in the movie were just cringingly bad
It’s like a poor mans Thelma and Louise, I wanted to leave but my girlfriend wouldn’t because there were a lot of black people there and she was afraid we would offend them, I told her I was offended by this movie.

4/10

Tony EH

*Possible spoilers.

'The Irishman'

Martin Scorsese gets to play around in his gangster sandpit for, what's probably, the last time and drags along Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci for one last hurrah.

'The Irishman' channels all the right vibes from his past gangster epics, like 'Goodfellas', 'Casino' and to a lesser extent 'Mean Streets' and tells the story of a dodgy paddy hitman, Frank Sheeran, as he makes his way through the snake pit of East coast organised crime syndicates and corrupt teamsters of the 50's, 60's and 70's and travels on up to Sheeran's time in a nursing home in the early 2000's.

Scorsese's excitable project has been knocking around in so called "development hell" for some time now, but I have to say that it was well worth the wait. It feels rich and realistic, while spanning numerous decades relatively successfully. Everyone brings their best to their roles, while not exactly embodying their real life counterparts to a tee. But they don't really have to. The audience never forgets that it's watching De Niro, Pacino and Pesci as the events unfold on screen, but they all carry on in such a pleasing way that it doesn't matter.

Out of the three, Pesci stands out as crime boss, Russell Bufalino. However, he is in a more staid mode in 'The Irishman' than what audiences are used to. People who are waiting around for Joey LaMotta, Tommy DeVito or even Vinny Gambini to turn up may be in for a bit of a surprise, as Pesci's character is cool and calm while still exerting a quiet, but clearly, menacing power.

Pacino, as the infamous Jimmy Hoffa, gets a role he can chew on, but in a good way and the "hoo hahs" of recent times have been kept out. He has fun blowing up in anger at certain points and is key to the success of a number of scenes, as is Merseyside actor Stephen Graham who is excellent in support as Tony "Pro" Provenzano.

Finally De Niro, as Frank Sheeran, plays a completely serviceable role, while never really being outstanding. It's, no doubt, his best turn in a long, long, time and it's nice to see him and Scorsese collaborate again.

The much talked about (and main reason for delays and budget increases) de-ageing effects from ILM do present a problem at first, but after a while you don't notice them, which is testament to the great work that ILM do. But it's also due to Scorsese's direction and a genuinely interesting story, which keeps the viewer engaged despite a very lengthy run time of three and a half hours. There are moments of "uncanny valley" here and there and as has been said elsewhere, De Niro's mid 70's frame can look "off", especially in scenes where he's supposed to be in his 40's.

Other criticism involves the period settings which, despite being well shot and produced, can result in a mild confusion as to what exact year events are taking place. Certain years are marked with well known occurrences, like the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, Kennedy's assassination in November 1963 (which the movie makes the claim of mob involvement), and Hoffa's "disappearance" in July 1975. But there's a vagueness involved, so that scenes from the 60's can feel like the 50's and scenes from the 70's can feel like 60's and so on. This is largely due to the film having to approximate the period setting as opposed to being filmed in it, of course. Scorsese's use of period music, too, feels a little underwhelming here and isn't as inspiring or capable of invocation as the tracks used in the likes of 'Goodfellas'.

Lastly, story wise, it may help if the viewer knows a little something about the times, Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, as not doing so can perhaps lead to a "what's happening now?" situation. 'The Irishman' also jumps between its time periods, too, which could possibly compound such matters. But, like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino', it's not really essential to do a crash course before you see the film.

All in all, though, these critical points don't distract too much from the film and if you're a fan of anyone of the majors involved here, or gangsters epics (whether helmed by Martin Scorsese or not), it's well worth seeing.

8.5/10

barrymanilow

Teen Spirit

This is a "will the troubled underdog triumph" drama music film but it’s different in that although the plot is a fairly standard idea the film is served up in an attractive arty style. You could take that quirky whelans girl that dresses like an ironic granny to see it in the lighthouse cinema but trish the big kodaline fan from accounts would also enjoy it too. Enjoyable feel good stuff with a bit of art college edge.

8/10

buried

The Irishman

Absolutely loved this to bits. Just such a great piece of work, the sequential art and editing is just something else altogether. Loved the sets, the whole work gone into the design of all the scenes, the mannerisms of the characters, its like watching actual history on screen. Just next level stuff. Hard to know who was doing the best here in terms of acting, everybody is just so brilliant. Thought Pesci's character was on another level of sinister while not even showing it in the overboard loud kind of way he portrayed his characters in both Goodfellas and Casino. A scene in this, he has a look in his eyes of total cold calculated evil, it was frightening.
Just brilliant work. Best Scorsese's ever done for me.

10/10

D'Agger

The Irishman:

Long, slow, plodding. The story was there and was relatively well tied together. The fact that there was never dialogue with his daughter and then

he's asking her to 'just talk' when he's nearly at the end of his life

seemed odd to me, there was a chance to show another dimension of the character there and it just seemed left out. Pesci was fantastic but overall it wasn't that enjoyable a watch (6.5/10)

Joker:

Brilliant. Pheonix is fantastic, it's well shot, thought his scenes with DeNiro were brilliant also. (9/10)

Once upon a time in Hollywood:

I really enjoyed it, thought Di Caprio & Pitt were excellent, some nice cameos (Lewis playing McQueen), some great nods to cinema and the Hollywood of old, some parts of the story seem a bit odd and the overall story being told is a bit clunked together rather than fluid but an enjoyable watch (8/10)

Del.Monte

"Cold Pursuit" (2019)

On my Annual FREE Amazon Prime trial.

Liam Neeson revenge thriller and well worth a watch. Based on the Norwegian thriller "In Order of Disappearance" which is also a must see.

Violent and very funny in places - shades of Fargo. 10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phuNQQ_gHI

Tom Mann Centuria

The Frighteners. Brilliant Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh comedy thriller/horror-ish with Michael J Fox. Clever film with an excellent supporting cast.

shrapnel222

lucky Day

Was kind of surprised when i accidentally came across this movie as it's the latest offering of a man who i'd completely forgotten about. Roger Avary. the man who co-wrote Pulp fiction, and the man who made killing zoe in the 90s, a film which i loved at the time, and still have very fond memories of now.

The movie in itself is quite OTT, and almost a pastiche of the "cool" robbery/revenge movie of the 90s, but it has some great performances and some brilliant scenes. It left me feeling a little disappointed as a whole, but still had plenty going for it.

In any event, it's nice to see him back making movies again

barrymanilow

Freaks (2019)

Thoroughly enjoyed. A fantasy / sci-fi kind of picture. Something along the lines of midnight special / Akira / M. Night Shyamalans stuff but doing its own very original thing too. I imagine it will have slipped under many a radar. Check it out.

9/10

Fysh

I finally got around to watching my copy of Phantom Boy last night, and I really enjoyed it, as expected given how much I liked A Cat In Paris, the previous animated feature by the same directing team. The art style is wonderful - leaning into its cartooniness with elements like the malleability of the Phantom's limbs, or the villain's disfigured face.

The English dub isn't too bad, as these things go, but I still much preferred watching it in French with subtitles - amongst other things the younger sister is given an irritatingly "cutesy" voice in the English dub while in the French version she just sounds like a normal small child.

al87987

barrymanilow wrote: »

Freaks (2019)

Thoroughly enjoyed. A fantasy / sci-fi kind of picture. Something along the lines of midnight special / Akira / M. Night Shyamalans stuff but doing its own very original thing too. I imagine it will have slipped under many a radar. Check it out.

9/10

Agreed watched it a few nights ago and quite enjoyed it 7.5/10.

Watched Sleep tight last night a Spanish film from a few years back. Highly recommended, about a concierge in a hotel who is not all he seems. Decent thriller 8/10.

Fysh

al87987 wrote: »

Agreed watched it a few nights ago and quite enjoyed it 7.5/10.

Watched Sleep tight last night a Spanish film from a few years back. Highly recommended, about a concierge in a hotel who is not all he seems. Decent thriller 8/10.

Luis Tosar is one terrifying mofo in that film. Fun fact - its Spanish title is "Mientras Duermes", which can cause idiots of a certain type (*coughcough*thisguy*coughcough*) to confuse it with While You Were Sleeping (the English translation of that title, but also the actual English title of a Sandra Bullock romcom). Which can lead to some great confusion - and entertainment! - when recommending it to friends...

4Ad

Del.Monte wrote: »

"Cold Pursuit" (2019)

On my Annual FREE Amazon Prime trial.

Liam Neeson revenge thriller and well worth a watch. Based on the Norwegian thriller "In Order of Disappearance" which is also a must see.

Violent and very funny in places - shades of Fargo. 10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phuNQQ_gHI

Was that not a Spanish film ??
If it's the same one it was brilliant !!

Drumpot

Damn it, wasn’t planning on watching anything for long but flicked on tv and the dark knight was on, I can’t get over what a superb movie it still is on repeat viewings. Easily the best comicbook movie and comfortably in my top 5 of all time... The only movie I’ve ever been looking forward for ages before it was released only for it to blast all expectations out of the park. absolutely love it, I don’t think it will ever be topped in its genre.

[Deleted User]

Motherless Brooklyn 2019 Norton has sold this well on his podcast tour, but it doesn't stand up to his glowing praise of his own work. I said to my friend during the film "Bruce Willis can't act anymore', to which he replied, 'he never could'. His scenes at the start really let the whole thing down, he is badly miscast.
There is some lovely technical work in the film, the sound and music are excellent, but it is slowwww and drags on and on, and meanders around the place. You really just want to get up an leave while the last scene is playing out, and I found myself hoping for the end to come quicker then it did.
Baldwin and Norton are both excellent in the acting department, and Norton is very very funny sometimes, but it doesn't hide the fact that this movie is ultimately pretty boring, and likely is going to epically bomb financially.

pixelburp

Klaus (2019)

Among the Hallmark style knock-offs Netflix are producing for Christmas, this was a sweet, gorgeous little animated tale, and one that might get lost amongst the driftwood - which would be a shame. It was sweet & sentimental, but without ever being saccharine or forced, while often being quite funny. The little moments of loss and tragedy also surprised, adding more depth than would have otherwise been expected. The film also looked quite beautiful; a CGI feature, but had a picture-book aesthetic, rendered at an intentional lower frame rate to give it the look of an illustration come to life (similar to what "Spiderverse" did itself).

Depending on ones tolerance for Christmas movies, this would make an enjoyable one for everyone IMO; my wife started watching it while I was doing other things, but just found myself getting sucked in.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Motherless Brooklyn 2019 Norton has sold this well on his podcast tour, but it doesn't stand up to his glowing praise of his own work. I said to my friend during the film "Bruce Willis can't act anymore', to which he replied, 'he never could'. His scenes at the start really let the whole thing down, he is badly miscast.
There is some lovely technical work in the film, the sound and music are excellent, but it is slowwww and drags on and on, and meanders around the place. You really just want to get up an leave while the last scene is playing out, and I found myself hoping for the end to come quicker then it did.
Baldwin and Norton are both excellent in the acting department, and Norton is very very funny sometimes, but it doesn't hide the fact that this movie is ultimately pretty boring, and likely is going to epically bomb financially.

Damn. That's a shame.

But, yeh, Bruce Willis could never act. Never understood the draw he has for some folk.