What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
I’ll do my best to answer a couple of points but probs worth looking up a few plot summaries / explanations if needed 
She (a) cut the ear off the girl, (b) tried to put things in their ‘right places in the crypt’ (including the ear) and (c) in the end offered up her own life (whilst cursing the audience)…
… as a collecting means of (I) trying to appease - and protect others in the future from - the malevolent god, as per the villagers, (II) curse the audience and weaken the curse on her daughter, (III) willingly kill herself from guilt - probably, knowing the pain and suffering she had inflicted on others both unwillingly (daughter) and willingly (audience).
She put her daughter in the ‘line of fire’ unwittingly by offering up the child’s name to the god in the village, thinking it was ‘merely a blessing’ - she was being ‘duped’ - the ‘proto-curse’ (scary visions etc.) was unleashed on her again when she wrote her name down with her mum at the start of the film, since the god already had the mum in its sights.
The villagers burned the guy (actual father) on a big pole in a village. The second guy was possessed and eventually fell to his death whilst chasing ‘mum’ out of the village - neither of them survived the village.
She wasn’t really ‘selfish’ in any malicious way, beyond desperately wanting her daughter to survive. But yes, in filming the face at the end, she knew it would harm everyone - albeit perhaps not fatally, if enough people were affected. My take on this was that end result was everyone (the audience) just suffering everyday misfortune, explaining why ‘**** happens’ in real life.
I hope that helps, maybe!
She (a) cut the ear off the girl, (b) tried to put things in their ‘right places in the crypt’ (including the ear) and (c) in the end offered up her own life (whilst cursing the audience)…
… as a collecting means of (I) trying to appease - and protect others in the future from - the malevolent god, as per the villagers, (II) curse the audience and weaken the curse on her daughter, (III) willingly kill herself from guilt - probably, knowing the pain and suffering she had inflicted on others both unwillingly (daughter) and willingly (audience).
She put her daughter in the ‘line of fire’ unwittingly by offering up the child’s name to the god in the village, thinking it was ‘merely a blessing’ - she was being ‘duped’ - the ‘proto-curse’ (scary visions etc.) was unleashed on her again when she wrote her name down with her mum at the start of the film, since the god already had the mum in its sights.
The villagers burned the guy (actual father) on a big pole in a village. The second guy was possessed and eventually fell to his death whilst chasing ‘mum’ out of the village - neither of them survived the village.
She wasn’t really ‘selfish’ in any malicious way, beyond desperately wanting her daughter to survive. But yes, in filming the face at the end, she knew it would harm everyone - albeit perhaps not fatally, if enough people were affected. My take on this was that end result was everyone (the audience) just suffering everyday misfortune, explaining why ‘**** happens’ in real life.
I hope that helps, maybe!
Haha yeah my bad, billy was the one in the cement!
I get what you mean, as you say for when he was in, he was great!
Last edited:
I’ll do my best to answer a couple of points but probs worth looking up a few plot summaries / explanations if needed
She (a) cut the ear off the girl, (b) tried to put things in their ‘right places in the crypt’ (including the ear) and (c) in the end offered up her own life (whilst cursing the audience)…
… as a collecting means of (I) trying to appease - and protect others in the future from - the malevolent god, as per the villagers, (II) curse the audience and weaken the curse on her daughter, (III) willingly kill herself from guilt - probably, knowing the pain and suffering she had inflicted on others both unwillingly (daughter) and willingly (audience).
She put her daughter in the ‘line of fire’ unwittingly by offering up the child’s name to the god in the village, thinking it was ‘merely a blessing’ - she was being ‘duped’ - the ‘proto-curse’ (scary visions etc.) was unleashed on her again when she wrote her name down with her mum at the start of the film, since the god already had the mum in its sights.
The villagers burned the guy (actual father) on a big pole in a village. The second guy was possessed and eventually fell to his death whilst chasing ‘mum’ out of the village - neither of them survived the village.
She wasn’t really ‘selfish’ in any malicious way, beyond desperately wanting her daughter to survive. But yes, in filming the face at the end, she knew it would harm everyone - albeit perhaps not fatally, if enough people were affected. My take on this was that end result was everyone (the audience) just suffering everyday misfortune, explaining why ‘**** happens’ in real life.
I hope that helps, maybe!
Thanks very much for explaining it! there was a few bits i had missed there or didnt quite follow so that clears things up. Still like you said pretty well done considering the budget and the style it was shot.
Last edited:
I'd agree with that. Just went to see it.
It's literally scene for scene the original movie with some real actors a slightly more realistic animation probably using the original models. It was ok, but it really wasn't that good and it certainly never needed creating.
thought id watched we own the night but gave it a watch was okay nothing special bit long winded. not amazing dunno how you gave it 9.5/10 just average mark whalberg stuff. really.id give it a 6 at best out of 10.
also watched the town. older film but far better. which i enjoyed.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,465
Agree with you on "We Own The Night", watched it after the high score on here....started ok, but then went off piste.. into a bit of a mess.. was ok but nothing special.. i'd say 5.5-6/10 max..
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,230
- Location
- Cumbria
Beverley Hills Cop 2
Not as good as first one but miles better than the crap that was 3. Plot weak bus still some funny stuff. Bit more forced than 1.
Not as good as first one but miles better than the crap that was 3. Plot weak bus still some funny stuff. Bit more forced than 1.
Not sure how you give it a 6 TBH, just look at the massive cast, and how perfectly they play their roles?
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about, Wahlberg is barely in it? It's all about Phoenix? Are you sure you watched it
The plot literally dictates Phoenix's avengement to his brother - Wahlberg who's in hospital for 90% of the movie and thus off camera ; So I'm a loss why you'd claim it was a Wahlberg movie?
It's all about Phoenix and Robert Duvall, with a sprinkling of Eva Mendes, and the tension that ensues?
It's all about Phoenix and Robert Duvall, with a sprinkling of Eva Mendes, and the tension that ensues?
The casting alone, is credible to any solid 7/8 out of 10 movie when utilized correctly, this easily ticks that box.
Robert Duvall, effortlessly is believable as the father of Wahlberg/Phoenix, and in his role in the Police.
Vadim Nezhinski provides a worthy enemy, with sublte evil nods to a professional criminal/mafia.
The film is shot, directed and edited beautifully, the use of locations/scenery is spot on too.
The finale, is near perfect, as is the way it was shot, edited, and directed.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't HEAT, levels of good, but in it's own way, based on the subject matter, it's not far off - in it's unique premise; I suggest you re-watch it?
You'd have to be majorly picky to rank this as a 6, I'd love to know what you regard as a 9.5? Then that'd let me know how your mind works/what you favour - genuinely no offense intended, but the cast alone, makes this a strong 7-8/10 considering how well it's executed?
I gave it a higher rating, based on it's rarity/under the radar, factor - I'm surprised I hadn't heard about it given the cast, be that good or bad.
Oh and 'The Town' - near perfect. LOVE that film. I won't even justify it, and it's a true story (roughly haha!)
Last edited:
I get what you are saying, but 1 stands for the slightly 'serious' side that has humour when you want it.
2 = the boys are back, the banter, the stunts, the chases, the casting.
So we got a silly, but IMHO, too short of a sequel, it works fine, but yeah, it flies by, time wise, but that in itself is a compliment to the film, when you think about it.
Think of it this way, Aliens is **** compared to Alien, it became a silly action/comedy, of which it never was as a horror flick original - BUT we like/respect both 'takes on it', regardless of the fact Alien wasn't intended to be taken into simplistic action/shooterfest like Aliens?
So BHC2, works very well, it's simple, but effective, i'd say it's easily a 6.5-7/10, granted it'll never benchmark like Lethal Weapon and it's sequels, but c'mon, the boys are back, and it works, and the soundtrack, casting, directing, production, and locations, are all spot on.
It's one of those films you 'just watch' straight after the original, and it gives you that little 'bit extra', that you wanted after the original, versus choosing a completely different film to follow it?
I can't be alone with that mindset when watching 2 films in a row? - nothing is better than having a sequel to keep the atmosphere? Or at worst some of the actors in something similiar/something that you like, regardless?
True Romance
10/10
Now, I've seen this many times before, but lets be honest, a 10/10 is very hard, but often given to the films you 'expect' to be 'this good'...
I think that's a bit biased, as anyone with enough connections/budget/cast, can achieve that, where possible, so when something with a lower budget, wins, then it really is a win, IMHO.
Baring in mind, Tarantino hated this, and nuked any association from it! Just why!
The casting on this for it's time/Tarantino's status at the time in the industry, wow!
How could he hate this? To the point he wanted any association removed?
Yet again, this is a perfect example of James Gandolfini, in beast mode, playing a pyscho, perfectly - despite openly admitting that he usually doesn't like playing people like that, but as with The Sopranos, he was begged to do it, and respected the writer/director/producer, so did it, and my god, are we grateful that he did!
You genuinely feel the 'love' Christian, and Patricia have for each other, it's effortless, and has a uniqueness to it, versus just being a 'film type romance'.
You expect 'normal' romance movies to give you 'that' feeling, so to 'feel' this in a gangster/mafia/mob/action/crime movie, is significant IMHO, as this isn't soley a romcom/love story, yet it is, in a crime setting - which makes this outstanding.
The casting, is just out of this world, especially for an earlier Tarantino - he outdid himself here!
For someone that favours Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown, as his favourite Tarantino, this certainly sent me back to the drawing books when watching it! I'd regard this as perfect, I honestly cannot think of what I'd change? To blend violence with such a great romance, to the point even 'guys will like it', and make you really envy Christian, is great, then pair that with the films second premise, a gangster/action flick, with some great natural comedic moments thrown in, yes, just yes! The soundtrack is spot on too!
Anyway, my TLDR is, based on the Tarantino universe, you expect RD/JB/KB/TH8, to be masterpieces, and this should be regarded as it too, the fact he hates it, blows my mind, and regardless, this is worthy of the same status, the fact he hates it, makes it even more surprising and impressive, as how could someone that hated this/created it yet wasn't happy, produce such a perfect film, given his extensive history of making awesome films that us the consumer, and him the writer/producer/director, creates - thus despite the fans loving it, he still hated it, why!?
How this still sneaks under the radar, even today, is criminal, this easily gets a 10, find me a comparable film based on circumstance/fan rating versus creator hatred, you wont.
The fact that I've felt compelled to rewrite/edit/add to this, to do the film justice, is proof in itself, this deserves a 10/10.
To me, this stands out like Memento does to Nolan, if you can respect the comparison, you get where I'm coming from. This is a masterpiece!
10/10
Now, I've seen this many times before, but lets be honest, a 10/10 is very hard, but often given to the films you 'expect' to be 'this good'...
I think that's a bit biased, as anyone with enough connections/budget/cast, can achieve that, where possible, so when something with a lower budget, wins, then it really is a win, IMHO.
Baring in mind, Tarantino hated this, and nuked any association from it! Just why!
The casting on this for it's time/Tarantino's status at the time in the industry, wow!
How could he hate this? To the point he wanted any association removed?
Yet again, this is a perfect example of James Gandolfini, in beast mode, playing a pyscho, perfectly - despite openly admitting that he usually doesn't like playing people like that, but as with The Sopranos, he was begged to do it, and respected the writer/director/producer, so did it, and my god, are we grateful that he did!
You genuinely feel the 'love' Christian, and Patricia have for each other, it's effortless, and has a uniqueness to it, versus just being a 'film type romance'.
You expect 'normal' romance movies to give you 'that' feeling, so to 'feel' this in a gangster/mafia/mob/action/crime movie, is significant IMHO, as this isn't soley a romcom/love story, yet it is, in a crime setting - which makes this outstanding.
The casting, is just out of this world, especially for an earlier Tarantino - he outdid himself here!
For someone that favours Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown, as his favourite Tarantino, this certainly sent me back to the drawing books when watching it! I'd regard this as perfect, I honestly cannot think of what I'd change? To blend violence with such a great romance, to the point even 'guys will like it', and make you really envy Christian, is great, then pair that with the films second premise, a gangster/action flick, with some great natural comedic moments thrown in, yes, just yes! The soundtrack is spot on too!
Anyway, my TLDR is, based on the Tarantino universe, you expect RD/JB/KB/TH8, to be masterpieces, and this should be regarded as it too, the fact he hates it, blows my mind, and regardless, this is worthy of the same status, the fact he hates it, makes it even more surprising and impressive, as how could someone that hated this/created it yet wasn't happy, produce such a perfect film, given his extensive history of making awesome films that us the consumer, and him the writer/producer/director, creates - thus despite the fans loving it, he still hated it, why!?
How this still sneaks under the radar, even today, is criminal, this easily gets a 10, find me a comparable film based on circumstance/fan rating versus creator hatred, you wont.
The fact that I've felt compelled to rewrite/edit/add to this, to do the film justice, is proof in itself, this deserves a 10/10.
To me, this stands out like Memento does to Nolan, if you can respect the comparison, you get where I'm coming from. This is a masterpiece!
Last edited:
look at the ratings online doesnt barely get a 6 so i think you either just a fan of the film but its just a normal film with wahlberg in and phoenix. its not even great acting. just run of the mill cast is good but that doesnt mean anything. 6 out of 10 film.Not sure how you give it a 6 TBH, just look at the massive cast, and how perfectly they play their roles?
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about, Wahlberg is barely in it? It's all about Phoenix? Are you sure you watched it
The plot literally dictates Phoenix's avengement to his brother - Wahlberg who's in hospital for 90% of the movie and thus off camera ; So I'm a loss why you'd claim it was a Wahlberg movie?
It's all about Phoenix and Robert Duvall, with a sprinkling of Eva Mendes, and the tension that ensues?
The casting alone, is credible to any solid 7/8 out of 10 movie when utilized correctly, this easily ticks that box.
Robert Duvall, effortlessly is believable as the father of Wahlberg/Phoenix, and in his role in the Police.
Vadim Nezhinski provides a worthy enemy, with sublte evil nods to a professional criminal/mafia.
The film is shot, directed and edited beautifully, the use of locations/scenery is spot on too.
The finale, is near perfect, as is the way it was shot, edited, and directed.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't HEAT, levels of good, but in it's own way, based on the subject matter, it's not far off - in it's unique premise; I suggest you re-watch it?
You'd have to be majorly picky to rank this as a 6, I'd love to know what you regard as a 9.5? Then that'd let me know how your mind works/what you favour - genuinely no offense intended, but the cast alone, makes this a strong 7-8/10 considering how well it's executed?
I gave it a higher rating, based on it's rarity/under the radar, factor - I'm surprised I hadn't heard about it given the cast, be that good or bad.
Oh and 'The Town' - near perfect. LOVE that film. I won't even justify it, and it's a true story (roughly haha!)
I've tried to word this the best that I can, considering that it's a school night and your thread email notification replies have woken me up twice now; so if my wording is a bit off/poor, or comes across blunt/rude, I genuinely apologize
With that in mind, why would I care about 'the ratings online' - I make my own opinions based on how a movie makes me feel? Not how the 'internet' states I should feel - why would I care if they said something was crap, if I liked it?
Whether it's 'unpopular' or not, it's me watching it...
To be honest, you're coming across like you just echo whatever the popular 'safe bet' internet opinion is, versus making your own - at that point I had to consider even bothering replying, as you're just seeking power in numbers at this point/sounding like a troll? Versus having your own opinion - which I would have respected.
How am I a 'fan of the film'? When I went into it blind, and this was my first viewing?
My review reflected that blind experience, thus a genuine review/rating?
Run-of-the-mill cast? Really?
When has, Phoenix, Wahlberg, Phoenix, Duvall, etc. ever been cast together - I'll answer that, never!
Let alone to deserve a cliche/common casting scenario? This is up there with the greats of "wow I didn't expect them to pair X and Y, let alone Z!"
He is NOT the protaganist? Phoenix is, the entire film focuses on Phoenix, and his retribution, all whilst Wahlberg is in hospital, injured, off scene, so what are you talking about?
The way you worded it, despite me pulling on your misinformation the first time, shows you've clearly got a bias, and some kind of hatred against Wahlberg?
He is NOT the protaganist? Phoenix is, the entire film focuses on Phoenix, and his retribution, all whilst Wahlberg is in hospital, injured, off scene, so what are you talking about?
Phoenix, starts off anti the police, and what his father/brother stands for, and then is forced into doing it to save his brother/father; HOW is this a normal, average acted movie?
I don't get your clearly anti-Wahlberg criticism, which thus taints any other actor?
I get he isn't the best, but he was 'enough' in this, and this is more about Phoenix/Duvall, for you to even care/hate Wahlberg?
How you'd signify the casting as run of the mill, versus the 'typical' cliche casting of it's time/after, is surprising?
I'm sorry, but casting does mean everything, without it, we don't believe/care, so you're wrong there, and taking that for granted?
Based on how you criticise casting, 'The Deer Hunter' and 'Deliverance' are just an easily cast movies too, no? Despite them having a weaker writer/producer/director, they're still overall, near perfect for their time?
I'd be interested to know what film that isn't a cliche, that you deem an 8-10/10?
Last edited: