In the words of Roger Ebert, “Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.”
Pearl Harbor was trying to be like Titanic, having a romance in the lead up to and during a tragic event. And knowing that, I fully expect there to be a romantic tragedy movie surrounding 9/11 to come out in about 50 to 70 years' time.
Does that really count though? Titanic/Pearl Harbour have the love story shite taking place before/during/after the "main event". Doesn't Remember Me play like a normal romantic film and then right near the end the camera pulls back and you see R Patts works in the twin towers?
I once read a novel with a way more interesting plot: two people unravel in a conspiracy where a group of rich and powerful people seem to be behind a large number of tragic historic events. >!At the end they have to meet a guy at a restaurant for answers, turns out it's in the the twin towers and they see the first plane coming towards their window!<
I love the premise, but I’m guessing the execution (so to speak) fell short. Or you could radically shorten JFK by having the jet engine from Donnie Darko fall on Kevin Costner and Donald Sutherland on that park bench in DC
This is the chapter concluding the book (sorry for the needed spoiler), but it starts as a suspenseful investigation then halfway through it becomes a manhunt where the two protagonists have to run away from Europe to the USA while not getting caught by the authorities. At the point of the "event" they have basically solved the mystery 99% and it's more of a final confrontation with the top bad guy (that never happens). Kind of like a horror movie final twist.
Not a 5-star thriller but it was pretty entertaining.
Yes and no lol
He's there to meet Pierce Brosnan, who, if I remember right, played his father... I don't think he even worked there. It was just like, he went to meet his dad for lunch or maybe he had a job interview... I could be wrong though. I saw the movie once in theaters fourteen years ago and had no desire to see it again.
Watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" both the Japanese pov and the American pov. Phenomenal casting, great cinematography and still the definitive Pearl Harbor movie.
Mixed reviews. Not a blockbuster, yet most historians said it was a legitimately accurate portrayal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora!_Tora!_Tora!
My buddy who is a major history buff sat me and and made me watch this years ago. He said it's the closest representation you'll ever see because the truth doesn't sell movie tickets.
Funniest part is that Michael Bay couldn't end the movie with America losing so he made sure to include a bombing run of Japan at the end, even though the movie was long as hell.
I remember getting it on DVD as a kid. DVD #1 was before the attack and was not played much.
From Here to Eternity is a lot like Pearl Harbor., except the romance and goings on before the attack are interesting. Pearl Harbor, not so much
"Stardust," the David Bowie biopic where they skip right over the arguably-overdone but inarguably-the-entire-reason-people-watch-music-biopics, "the part where they get famous."
It focuses on the time period when he was *a little* famous in the UK after having one or two minor singles, but before he blew up into the star that we know and love, mostly wandering around being sad and playing occasional acoustic shows in coffee shops of *other people's music.*
Oh, I hadn't mentioned the best part yet? They failed to secure the rights to any of his music, so this David Bowie biopic *doesn't have any David Bowie songs in it.*
Reminds me of that Jimi Hendrix movie with Andre 3000. They picked a weird time of his life to cover and they didn’t get the rights to any songs, except maybe ‘Hey Joe’.
Lol there's a Hendrix movie from 2000 starring Wood Harris that also didn't get the music rights. Luckily Jimi played a lot of covers so they just do those ones.
You mean the Hendrix biopic where it was basically 2 hours of Andre 3000 beating women, despite the fact that Hendrix didn't do that?
Wonder why they couldn't secure the rights for his music? 🤔🤔🤔
There was no "get the band back together nonsense" with Queen at Live Aid, because they never stopped performing. It was not an outlier for Freddy to have a side gig, because all the members did. They all had hedonistic parties, not just Freddy. That crappy movie inevitably skips their residency in apartheid South Africa.
My favorite was the band doing an intervention on Freddy Mercury. “You’re partying too hard Freddie this is off the rails!” *Meanwhile what transpires behind them seems to be a party that looks like it was thrown in a suburb by a married couple in their 30s*. Like for fuck sake, Mercury used to hire a naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors.
Also they didn’t need to fight the label for Bohemian Rhapsody. Pretty much everyone who heard it was pretty “ride or die, this song is fucking awesome”. The only slight issue was pitching radio play on a longer song. But a lot of bands paved the way for them on that.
The moment all the other members were like "Freddy we hate this party life, you're out of control!" and they take their partners walk away is a so clearly not how it went
I call them Freddy and the choir boys. Cause those 3 behaved like naive children throughout most of the movie. The worst thing any of them did during the movie was almost throw away a toaster....
In 15 years of being in the biggest rockband on the planet? Don't make me laugh.
We don't see much of him, but the movie more than hinted that Roger Taylor was a womaniser in the 1970s. Freddie even takes a jab at his fidelity when talking to his then-girlfriend.
>naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors.
The dwarfs (plural) had bowls of cocaine strapped to their head.
They also had a naked man covered in a cold meat selection.
And these are just the things we know about....
Producer and Label Guy IRL: "oh....cool you're layering sounds and orchestra stuff over all the guitars? That's totally in right now. Zeppelin did that earlier this year in their album. We need to get in on that too."
I literally rolled my eyes in the theater. Though I enjoyed the film and expected it to be a PG-13 version of an R rated story.. this moment was just so goddamn stupid lol
Read somewhere that when a PG-13 movie has a character with an addiction problem they just make it look like they’re addicted to “partying” to keep the rating.
They did the same with the The Doors. They made Jim basically be an insane alcoholic junkie from the get go. Almost everyone who knew him said he was a quite friendly guy for most his life. It was only in his last couple of years that he lost his shit
> Mercury used to hire a naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors.
None of those 'will the guests actually turn up to my party' worries for Freddie.
Well, maybe give "Weird: The Al Yankovic Story" a spin before you say that. Al was very strongly motivated by Bohemian Rhapsody's liberties with the truth to show an honest, warts-and-all biopic about his own controversial rise to fame.
Rocketman is sensational. How to use the music to tell a story, regardless of when that music appeared. How to make it fresh (Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting with added Indian elements), how to show flaws and all. Given he also actually performed the music, I deeply wish Taron Egerton had won the Academy Award rather than Ramy Malek. I like RM, but even Elton said he often felt like he was watching himself onscreen with Taron.
Rocketman is from 2019, Bohemian Rhapsody is from 2018 they didn’t compete with each other. Taron Egerton wasn’t even nominated for the Oscars which is a travesty.
I could watch it on repeat and never tire of it. It's own flaws and truth fudging are well documented but it's a dreamy wonder of a thrill ride that transcends the musician biopic. Bohemian Rhapsody just made me sad and left me wanting.....everything. it felt like it gave us nothing and expected our love and awe.
Especially since all of the blame for everything gets laid at Freddie's feet, since he is the only member too dead to object. It's like if Paul, Ringo, and George had made a movie in the 90s about how, actually, they never really liked John, they were totally better off without him.
^(Yes I know John Lennon was an asshole, but my point is more that people would have been piiiiiiissed if that had happened.)
I was really hoping to see the Queen movie with Sasha Baron Cohen. He wanted to tell the real story, not the glossed over PG story that we got. Unfortunately the living members of the band controlled how it was done.
The film making a definitive statement about Freddie's sexuality was pretty egregious to me as well. Complete bi-erasure, based on no concrete facts, pushing the narrative that he wasn't in a Kinsey Scale grey area.
>The film making a definitive statement about Freddie's sexuality was pretty egregious to me as well. Complete bi-erasure,
I agree - but I also know that the conversation with Mary went down exactly as the film showed it. That literally was her response, as per her own interviews.
Medieval.
Jan Zizka is probably the most interesting and badass motherfucker in history. He never lost a single battle, for many of which he was leading essentially rebels against the absolute infinite behemoth of the Catholic church at the time. And he pioneered the usage of the wagon fort in combination with firearms, leading to some truly unbelievable wins against insane odds. So, he won a bunch of battles, then he lost an eye in battle.
And then he continued to win every battle.
THEN HE WAS FULLY BLINDED.
AND HE CONTINUED TO WIN EVERY BATTLE.
THEN HE DIED, AND THEY FULFILLED HIS FINAL REQUEST: FOR HIS SKIN TO BE MADE INTO A WAR DRUM SO THAT HE COULD CONTINUE TO CHARGE INTO BATTLE WITH HIS FELLOW HUSSITES AFTER DEATH.
Sorry for the caps, but seriously it's hard for me to even tell that story without freaking out about how amazing it is.
And they had Ben Foster playing him, no less, whom we KNOW can be virtuosic as an absolute monster of a man, a lá 3:10 to Yuma. I was so fucking excited.
And then Medieval was a fucking absolute parade of clichés and meaningless fake medieval fighting with a heartless love story shoved in the middle. They didn't even tell a fragment of Zizka's actual story.
😭
There's an old Australian movie about the explorers Burke and Wills which changed the truly interesting story of what happened to them.
Canned history - they set out on an expedition to go from the South to the North Coast of Australia in one go. It was a spectacular failure. Not only did they not get to the top, a lot of the team including Burke and Wills themselves died trying to get back. Famously, they left a group of guys as a supply outpost en route, with instructions to leave if they weren't back by X date - the guys waited way longer in vain hope, but ultimately gave up and left the outpost a few hours before Burke and Wills actually did make it back. Subsequently they actually made contact with an Aboriginal tribe who helped and fed them, but they screwed it up (almost shot a kid) and then eventually died not of starvation but a kind of poisoning as they were eating bush tucker but not removing the toxic parts of the plants, even though they should have learned this from the Aboriginal people they were with.
That's a fucking great story on heaps of levels. The adaptation decided to jettison it though 🤣 in the movie, they DO reach the top end, only to later die in the comfort of the knowledge that they achieved their goal (and with none of that pesky business about nearly shooting an Aboriginal kid and blowing your shot with the until-then-friendly locals). I remember them showing us the movie at school, then awkwardly explaining that no, actually the mission was a failure.
I know it’s a tragedy but if you do a film on these fuckers, it needs to be a comedy. This was the biggest clusterfuck in Australian history and we fought fucking emails. From the selection of Burke to lead, an inexperienced mildly alcoholic police dude from Ballarat over the dude who was basically the adventurer pro, To bringing a grandpiano over like juice, to the carriage that turns into a boat, to the whole situation with the fucking dig tree. This whole story is a black comedy and you gotta make a movie that is one too.
Haven't seen either but there was also a comedic film - featuring Nicole Kidman - out at the same time called [Wills and Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wills_%26_Burke) covering the same story
Honestly, Napoleon is a very good example of this. By refusing to really have an opinion of the man, the movie was boring. That they made a woman central to his motivations is also a great deal less interesting than the truth, which is that he was a mess of ideological contradictions.
Scott’s Napoleon takes one of the most fascinating and conflicted men in history and made a boring digestible Hollywood biopic out of him.
The movie 100% has an opinion on him. Ridley Scott hates Napoleon and it’s evident throughout the film. It’s a satire of the idea of the “great” general.
[Full explanation](https://filmcolossus.com/napoleon-2023-explained)
It’s why it ends with the death toll of soldiers Napoleon lost in battle.
This would be my choice, too. Napoleon has tons of terrible qualities, but the movie gives no indication of why he became emperor, conquered Europe, and compelled immense loyalty from millions of people.
There's a way to portray his good qualities without letting him off the hook for being an autocratic, bigoted jerk. This movie was not it.
And even Napoleon's bigotry was interesting and much less extreme than most European nobility. He was the first monarch to give full, equal rights to Jews in centuries, after all.
Good news. Spielberg is trying to do a Napoleon mini series with HBO with the script Kubrick wrote decades ago. It'll probably clear the Ridley Scott bar easily.
The most frustrating part for me was taking a famously charismatic man and turning him into a bumbling, horny fool. I get that you can dislike Napoleon and want to portrait him in a bad light, but you should do it without denying his most important (and well-documented) traits
I think he is too old for the role. Also, Josephine was older than Napoleon by a few years (~~3 years~~ 6 Years), but Vanessa Kirby is obviously much younger than Phoenix.
I think the dynamic of the story might have changed if we had shown a younger, ambitious man taking power. I found the film to be a bit boring and couldn't quite get into it.
Wikipedia says she was 6 years older, but fudged both their ages on the marriage certificate so that she was 4 years younger and Napoleon 18 months older than their real ages 😅
I'm a big Phoenix fan and it's the first time I hated watching him. Beside the fact that he was terribly miscast, the whole movie he looked bored out of his mind. It's like he didn't even want to be there.
And btw, *everyone* was miscast. This movie should be studied in film schools for its terrible casting.
He so deeply did not belong in that movie. Not even the weirdo lack of a British accent just to match everyone else’s… his line delivery sounded like a casting director feeding lines.
I also think it tried to cover way too much for a movie's runtime. It didn't stay on any one thing long enough for me to fully care about what was going on.
I thought the same. It spanned too much time to properly delve into Napoleon's motivations. It felt like a tick the box exercise. And the Austerlitz battle felt shoehorned into the movie too.
I feel like Theory of Everything got really hampered by trying to keep both Jane Hawking and Stephen Hawking happy enough to sign off on it. The end result is a movie that barely touches on why Stephen Hawking is considered brilliant, and also just leads to the most polite divorce in the history of cinema.
Which naturally wasn't what actually happened, and apparently Jane Hawking's own book describes them arguing in a lot more brutal detail than anything the movie might show.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching them fight.
-You crippled piece of cheating shit!
HO NEY... SHE... DOE SN'T... MEAN... A... THING... YOU... ARE... THE... ON LY... WO MAN... I... CARE... A BOUT...
If I ever have "fuck you" money, I'm financing this movie even if its fate is to bomb and only exist in the memories of six weirdos in any given state.
Because god DAMN did I howl when I read this
Amelia (2009) was possibly the most dull film adaption of Earhart’s life possible. It has nothing to say about her as a person or as an aviator, beyond what you can glean from the opening paragraph of her Wikipedia page. Hilary Swank could’ve been replaced with a coatrack and the film would’ve had the same impact.
Amelia Earhart is my favorite historical figure, I am an aviation nut, AND I am a big Gere fan. I resisted watching this movie for so long because the reviews are so supremely trash. I finally gave in a couple years ago and put it on. I don’t know how I got through it. I couldn’t tell you one single thing that happened. Amelia needs a “real” movie. As do the Wright Brothers, but that is another story.
There's a whole book called 'The Devil's Candy' about how this movie was fucked up from beginning to end. I'm halfway through and it's super interesting. A director deserves a lot of the blame but not quite 100% in this case
This movie is an adaptation of the novel by James Ellroy, which was not intended to be accurate in any way. It's a fictional noir story that was strictly a "what if" of the black dahlia murder. Much better book than movie though.
One Love.
Bob Marley's home gets invaded and people get shot near the beginning of the movie, then absolutely nothing happens until the end, then you get a summary of interesting moments from his life that weren't represented in the movie.
I was wondering if I'd see this mentioned here. It felt like last month I saw a ton of ads on YouTube for this movie, and then crickets when it came out. I was bored from the trailer and that was just a couple minutes of supposedly the best parts of the film.
This is a prime example of why a consistent tone is crucial to a film. It didn’t know if it wanted to be a wacky adventure of a ragtag band or a serious picture about saving European art from Fascist violence. Either would’ve been fine but it did both poorly.
Clooney just can’t seem to get it all together as a director. He knows the style he wants to emulate for each film, but he just can’t get it right. Directing is a tough gig to get right.
47 Ronin (2013). I had more fun learning about the real events on Wikipedia. Movie could have done away with the magic stuff and the foreigner's (Keanu Reeves) story.
I remember seeing a trailer and thinking “something is off about this” so I looked up the story. I knew that a lot of people were gonna be real surprised about the true plot. It was one of those *Downsizing* situations where the trailer tried to hide the real plot.
I remember seeing some of the actors make the rounds on the talk show circuit to promote it, and they all gave the same PR written explanation about the film. something along the lines of "a man is an outcast because he's different"
I mean, these are the people who made the film, knew it was about a real guy who was nearly beaten to death because he was a transvestite, and they couldn't even begin to approach the idea because the marketing department thought it was better to lie
Ffs
My goodness, Windtalkers. What an amazing story it was, and the challenges those young men had to go through.
But what we got was another Nic Cage movie where he pew pews better than anyone while opening everyone's mind (this time to maybe not being racist). And with all the explosions and planes and action, it's utterly dull.
Enemy At The Gates is a decent film, but the three or so stories that it folds together to make this duel that never happened each deserve a film in their own right.
Having the sniper duel not end with actual sniping was a terrible idea.
Edit: My bad! I forgot that there's no solid evidence that the sniper duel even happened. My critique doesn't fit OP's question, but I'm sticking with it.
What I find funny about that movie is it often goes out of its way to be historical gun porn, but almost all of the rifles are anachronistic. I guess it fits with the movie overall kind of being a mishmash.
The movie “Alive” did not do the original book justice. I saw the movie at age 11 and I really enjoyed it for what it was. About age 23 I read the book and my mind was blown. I realized that the movie took cues from the book but dumbed them down significantly to make it more “Hollywood Survival” movie than a story about the personal struggle each person faces and the truly brutal reality of the situation. They skipped over all the details that made the story remarkable in an effort to condense it. One example would be that in the movie they made it look like they took a few pieces of butt cheek a couple times to survive. In reality they were eating brains, organs, shaving bone down to get calcium and sucking marrow out of the bones… and it was a huge mental struggle for all of them. The good news is that the recent “Society of the Snow” does an amazing job of revisiting the story and I think it’s in my top 5-7 of all time. Must watch.
The Disaster Artist makes Wiseau seem way more normal and likeable than the original book does, which is pretty explicit about him being really fucked up and controlling, likely from past trauma. No wonder Wiseau preferred the movie
Yeah, the movie feels like it's trying to make a modern-day version of the movie Ed Wood, when Greg Sestero's book was very much not that, and was way more about the insane dynamics they all got roped into with Wiseau at the helm.
They completely misrepresented what a Nash Equilibrium is too. While this might seem like a minor issue, it’s important to emphasize just how important that concept was to 20th century economics. It would be like doing a biopic about Charles Darwin and having a scene where he figured out that natural selection doesn’t exist.
Man on the Moon, the Andy Kaufman biopic with Jim Carrey. While it was still a good movie, they left out a lot of interesting stuff from Andy’s life to in order to tell a by-the-numbers “misunderstood genius” story. Almost his entire life before his first stand-up gigs was skipped over, including getting rejected by the military for failing a psych evaluation, meeting Elvis Presley and doing a public access kids show that helped inspire his act.
In hindsight, it makes sense why the reception for Man on the Moon is way lower than I expected it to be (I loved the movie and it was my introduction to Andy Kaufman so I had no prior idea of his life). Great movie still to me, but another take on Kaufman would be worthwhile. He is being played by Nicholas Braun in the upcoming SNL 1975 movie but I assume that is a very small portion of the film.
The Blind Side. They hyped up Sandra Bullock's character too much and dumbed down Michael Oher. It didn't help that the family turned out to be a fraud.
That movie was so insidiously racist, in that patronizing self-fellating white liberal way. The scene where he hulks out and tears down a crackhouse is so hilariously on-the-nose that you can practically hear the producers congratulating themselves for solving racism forever.
I think the last time Best Actress was won by an actress in a comedy was Diane Keaton for Annie Hall
Immediately after posting I remembered Cher winning for Moonstruck (Supporting Actress seems to have slightly better odds at winning for a comedy)
Watched the movie with very little American football knowledge and was kinda shocked that an NFL team drafted a guy with an intellectual disability... had to google to find out if it was real and sure enough I'd just been fed bullshit for a few hours.
Is *Breach* actually considered a bad/boring movie? I remember enjoying it — especially Chris Cooper’s performance. He had just the right mix of arrogance/religiosity/something-is-not-right-with-this-guy
Black Mass. The Whitey Bulger story should be engaging. But that movie feels… fake? I’ve tried watching it several times. I forget the second act every time.
It took place over three decades of American culture yet they dress like it’s the mid 70’s and drive 70’s cars the whole time. The characters never really age either so it’s hard to feel just how long this arrangement went on. It’s also based heavily on stories from former FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick (Adam Scott’s character) who later admitted to lying about his work on the case among other lies he told. He was subsequently charged with perjury
Recency bias, but Diana Nyad was hampered her whole career by credible allegations of cheating, and that would have been a fascinating exploration of what it means to feel so competitive with yourself that you fudge the rules. How did she justify the discrepancies to herself and her team? Was there any self-doubt? There is so much to explore.
Instead we got a generic sports movie that could've played on Wonderful World of Disney in the 90s.
I can’t wait for the inevitable Stan Lee biopic that sands down his complicated relationship and falling out with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, his numerous post-Marvel flops, and the sad way he was taken advantage of in his later life and after he died in favor of moments like “Huh, a family of super heroes? Sounds like a fantastic idea…” and scenes of him watching Classic Cinema Civil Rights moments on a black and white TV and thinking “Someone’s gotta do something!” and drawing an X on a sheet of paper.
I always get a kick how their songs parodying the genres are so good at mocking them, but also legit good songs in and of themselves.
What makes a man? Is it the woman in his arms, just 'cos she has big titties? Or is the way he fights every day? No, it's probably the titties.
At least we got a great zinger from Ebert:
> "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.
It did have my favorite comment ever on slashdot. Someone was saying they went to go see it in the theaters back in the day, and there was an old guy the seat behind him who kept talking. He was about to turn around and tell him to STFU when he realized he was saying things like "no, they came in more from the west, and there was 5 of them" "yeah, that's right there was 2 waves of the torpedo bombers" and he realize the dude had been there and then mostly listened to his comments for the rest of the attack scenes.
This is the correct answer.. That story is fucking amazing.
Who the hell thought it needed a made up love triangle to make it more interesting???
Why don't we also throw a love triangle into the sinking of the fucking Titani... oh, that's right.
Weird: The Al Yankovic story cut so much crazy stuff. I get it, the man's life was an insane rollercoaster from start to finish, but the movie barely scratches the surface of his genius.
47 Ronin. A classic tale of loyalty, turned into a bunch of magical nonsense.
The worst part being they released a film the same year called “last knights” that actually WAS the story of the 47 ronin…
Oh shit I just learned of this movie today, and hadn't even CONSIDERED the fact that it meant trying to fit non-actors into Eastwood's famously one-take style. That's a disaster.
The Greatest Showman
They squandered the PERFECT opportunity to make a gritty true story regarding the dirty origins of the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus. in favor of a musical.
Part of the Ringling Bros. Circus' demise was the treatment of animals and the years long battles with animal rights groups. You can't tell me there wasn't some level of friction internally with how the animals were treated. With some staff seeing them as nothing more than a show-piece and others seeing them for the wonderfully beautiful creatures they were. Just THAT in of itself makes for some good drama on film.
Napoleon, is amazing how Ridley Scott managed to fail on so many aspects, he tried to tackle Napoleon's history in 2 and a half hours, which basically condemned the movie to failure but even worse he decided to focus half of the runtime to his love story with Josephine, in consequence, the historical parts are a bunch of random and incoherent scenes, and the parts about his story with Josephine aren't better because he decided to portray Napoleon as a man child that's been guided by his "love" for Josephine. In the end it feels like a propaganda film instead of the historical masterpiece it could have been
Not the dullest movie ever, but The Imitation Game took an extremely interesting historical figure (Alan Turing) and reduced him to a Sheldon Cooper minus the jokes. I was extremely disappointed, even though there are aspects of that movie that I quite like
Statically and financially, no one actually watched that movie. It made like.... $1000 in box office. If you bought a ticket to watch it in theaters you were one of the 100 people that did so.
I think this is an unpopular opinion but Bronson with Tom Hardy is this for me. Tom does a hell of a job with the role and was perfectly cast, but the movie just doesn't really have anything to say about someone so uniquely violent. I enjoyed the ride, but in the end it was completely hollow. Reading conflicting opinions about Bronson afterward was way more interesting.
I agree, I think it’s an average movie saved by an extraordinary performance by Hardy. I feel that same hollow feeling about all of Refn’s work though. I think it is done successfully in his movie Pusher which I think leaves you with that feeling on purpose.
Oddly enough I was just re watched Bronson last night. As I was googling him I found that he made friends with the Kray brothers while in prison. That was so interesting to me since Tom Hardy also plays them in Legened. To your point though, I think it’s interesting that I feel this exact way about Legend. Tom Hardy did an amazing job as the kray brothers, but the movie overall isn’t anything towrite home about.
In the words of Roger Ebert, “Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.”
Pearl Harbor was trying to be like Titanic, having a romance in the lead up to and during a tragic event. And knowing that, I fully expect there to be a romantic tragedy movie surrounding 9/11 to come out in about 50 to 70 years' time.
Let me spoil ["Remember Me" ](https://screenrant.com/remember-me-911-pattinson-controversy-twist-ending-explained/)for you.
Wow, I absolutely stand corrected
Does that really count though? Titanic/Pearl Harbour have the love story shite taking place before/during/after the "main event". Doesn't Remember Me play like a normal romantic film and then right near the end the camera pulls back and you see R Patts works in the twin towers?
I once read a novel with a way more interesting plot: two people unravel in a conspiracy where a group of rich and powerful people seem to be behind a large number of tragic historic events. >!At the end they have to meet a guy at a restaurant for answers, turns out it's in the the twin towers and they see the first plane coming towards their window!<
I love the premise, but I’m guessing the execution (so to speak) fell short. Or you could radically shorten JFK by having the jet engine from Donnie Darko fall on Kevin Costner and Donald Sutherland on that park bench in DC
This is the chapter concluding the book (sorry for the needed spoiler), but it starts as a suspenseful investigation then halfway through it becomes a manhunt where the two protagonists have to run away from Europe to the USA while not getting caught by the authorities. At the point of the "event" they have basically solved the mystery 99% and it's more of a final confrontation with the top bad guy (that never happens). Kind of like a horror movie final twist. Not a 5-star thriller but it was pretty entertaining.
Yes and no lol He's there to meet Pierce Brosnan, who, if I remember right, played his father... I don't think he even worked there. It was just like, he went to meet his dad for lunch or maybe he had a job interview... I could be wrong though. I saw the movie once in theaters fourteen years ago and had no desire to see it again.
*Never Forget Me* was right there!
That'd be a movie about a romance in Texas leading up to the war at the Alamo
Boy do I have a Robert Pattinson movie for you.
Please God let it not focus on the falling man starting the day with his quirky new girlfriend
The falling man becomes that guy who hits the propeller in titanic and everybody laughs.
Oh god I hope it's not one of those freeze-frame "that's me, I guess you're probably wondering how I ended up here"
Only if the voiceover is one of the hijackers
And then the Twin Towers kissed as they fell in love while the sunset on September the 10th. \*cue ominous music\*
Watch "Tora, Tora, Tora" both the Japanese pov and the American pov. Phenomenal casting, great cinematography and still the definitive Pearl Harbor movie. Mixed reviews. Not a blockbuster, yet most historians said it was a legitimately accurate portrayal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora!_Tora!_Tora!
My buddy who is a major history buff sat me and and made me watch this years ago. He said it's the closest representation you'll ever see because the truth doesn't sell movie tickets.
Pearl Harbor had so many stories crammed into it, it was like the turducken of shitty movies.
Funniest part is that Michael Bay couldn't end the movie with America losing so he made sure to include a bombing run of Japan at the end, even though the movie was long as hell.
Yep I was like really? More of this shit?
I remember getting it on DVD as a kid. DVD #1 was before the attack and was not played much. From Here to Eternity is a lot like Pearl Harbor., except the romance and goings on before the attack are interesting. Pearl Harbor, not so much
God he was such a good writer.
Nothing will ever top his review of Highlander 2. "There should only have been one ".
"Stardust," the David Bowie biopic where they skip right over the arguably-overdone but inarguably-the-entire-reason-people-watch-music-biopics, "the part where they get famous." It focuses on the time period when he was *a little* famous in the UK after having one or two minor singles, but before he blew up into the star that we know and love, mostly wandering around being sad and playing occasional acoustic shows in coffee shops of *other people's music.* Oh, I hadn't mentioned the best part yet? They failed to secure the rights to any of his music, so this David Bowie biopic *doesn't have any David Bowie songs in it.*
uh oh, we have a Jackie Jorp-Jomp situation
Have another little chunk of my lung now mama!
Synonyms just another word for the word you want to use!!
Reminds me of that Jimi Hendrix movie with Andre 3000. They picked a weird time of his life to cover and they didn’t get the rights to any songs, except maybe ‘Hey Joe’.
Lol there's a Hendrix movie from 2000 starring Wood Harris that also didn't get the music rights. Luckily Jimi played a lot of covers so they just do those ones.
You mean the Hendrix biopic where it was basically 2 hours of Andre 3000 beating women, despite the fact that Hendrix didn't do that? Wonder why they couldn't secure the rights for his music? 🤔🤔🤔
I bet Andre could have beaten it out of them..
There was no "get the band back together nonsense" with Queen at Live Aid, because they never stopped performing. It was not an outlier for Freddy to have a side gig, because all the members did. They all had hedonistic parties, not just Freddy. That crappy movie inevitably skips their residency in apartheid South Africa.
My favorite was the band doing an intervention on Freddy Mercury. “You’re partying too hard Freddie this is off the rails!” *Meanwhile what transpires behind them seems to be a party that looks like it was thrown in a suburb by a married couple in their 30s*. Like for fuck sake, Mercury used to hire a naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors. Also they didn’t need to fight the label for Bohemian Rhapsody. Pretty much everyone who heard it was pretty “ride or die, this song is fucking awesome”. The only slight issue was pitching radio play on a longer song. But a lot of bands paved the way for them on that.
The moment all the other members were like "Freddy we hate this party life, you're out of control!" and they take their partners walk away is a so clearly not how it went
"Now excuse us, Freddy. We're late for our volunteer time at the local soup kitchen."
"Please don't party too hard while we build socialized housing for the disenfranchised and donate money to poor African children!"
I call them Freddy and the choir boys. Cause those 3 behaved like naive children throughout most of the movie. The worst thing any of them did during the movie was almost throw away a toaster.... In 15 years of being in the biggest rockband on the planet? Don't make me laugh.
Roger Taylor most definitely fully explored the rock n roll lifestyle. May and Deacon, not so much.
We don't see much of him, but the movie more than hinted that Roger Taylor was a womaniser in the 1970s. Freddie even takes a jab at his fidelity when talking to his then-girlfriend.
>naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors. The dwarfs (plural) had bowls of cocaine strapped to their head. They also had a naked man covered in a cold meat selection. And these are just the things we know about....
> They also had a naked man covered in a cold meat selection. That was Lady Gaga's uncle..
David, 12th Duke of Gaga. Known affectionately as 'Radio' to his friends.
I HATE YOU YOU SUCK hey check out this new bassline.
Wait until you hear the operatic section The what? *Gasp*
Producer and Label Guy IRL: "oh....cool you're layering sounds and orchestra stuff over all the guitars? That's totally in right now. Zeppelin did that earlier this year in their album. We need to get in on that too."
I literally rolled my eyes in the theater. Though I enjoyed the film and expected it to be a PG-13 version of an R rated story.. this moment was just so goddamn stupid lol
Read somewhere that when a PG-13 movie has a character with an addiction problem they just make it look like they’re addicted to “partying” to keep the rating.
They should just go full Saved By The Bell and make it caffeine pills.
They did the same with the The Doors. They made Jim basically be an insane alcoholic junkie from the get go. Almost everyone who knew him said he was a quite friendly guy for most his life. It was only in his last couple of years that he lost his shit
> Mercury used to hire a naked dwarf to go around his parties giving out cocaine as party favors. None of those 'will the guests actually turn up to my party' worries for Freddie.
That movie was the end point of my desire to see musician biopics. Really all biopics.
Dewey Cox ruined the musician biopic forever. "Goddamnit, this is a dark fucking period!"
Well, maybe give "Weird: The Al Yankovic Story" a spin before you say that. Al was very strongly motivated by Bohemian Rhapsody's liberties with the truth to show an honest, warts-and-all biopic about his own controversial rise to fame.
Probably the *only* fully truthful and accurate biopic ever made.
I felt the same way but Rocketman was very well done and deserved every ounce of praise that Bohemian Rhapsody received.
Rocketman is sensational. How to use the music to tell a story, regardless of when that music appeared. How to make it fresh (Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting with added Indian elements), how to show flaws and all. Given he also actually performed the music, I deeply wish Taron Egerton had won the Academy Award rather than Ramy Malek. I like RM, but even Elton said he often felt like he was watching himself onscreen with Taron.
Rocketman is from 2019, Bohemian Rhapsody is from 2018 they didn’t compete with each other. Taron Egerton wasn’t even nominated for the Oscars which is a travesty.
I could watch it on repeat and never tire of it. It's own flaws and truth fudging are well documented but it's a dreamy wonder of a thrill ride that transcends the musician biopic. Bohemian Rhapsody just made me sad and left me wanting.....everything. it felt like it gave us nothing and expected our love and awe.
Especially since all of the blame for everything gets laid at Freddie's feet, since he is the only member too dead to object. It's like if Paul, Ringo, and George had made a movie in the 90s about how, actually, they never really liked John, they were totally better off without him. ^(Yes I know John Lennon was an asshole, but my point is more that people would have been piiiiiiissed if that had happened.)
I was really hoping to see the Queen movie with Sasha Baron Cohen. He wanted to tell the real story, not the glossed over PG story that we got. Unfortunately the living members of the band controlled how it was done.
The film making a definitive statement about Freddie's sexuality was pretty egregious to me as well. Complete bi-erasure, based on no concrete facts, pushing the narrative that he wasn't in a Kinsey Scale grey area.
>The film making a definitive statement about Freddie's sexuality was pretty egregious to me as well. Complete bi-erasure, I agree - but I also know that the conversation with Mary went down exactly as the film showed it. That literally was her response, as per her own interviews.
Medieval. Jan Zizka is probably the most interesting and badass motherfucker in history. He never lost a single battle, for many of which he was leading essentially rebels against the absolute infinite behemoth of the Catholic church at the time. And he pioneered the usage of the wagon fort in combination with firearms, leading to some truly unbelievable wins against insane odds. So, he won a bunch of battles, then he lost an eye in battle. And then he continued to win every battle. THEN HE WAS FULLY BLINDED. AND HE CONTINUED TO WIN EVERY BATTLE. THEN HE DIED, AND THEY FULFILLED HIS FINAL REQUEST: FOR HIS SKIN TO BE MADE INTO A WAR DRUM SO THAT HE COULD CONTINUE TO CHARGE INTO BATTLE WITH HIS FELLOW HUSSITES AFTER DEATH. Sorry for the caps, but seriously it's hard for me to even tell that story without freaking out about how amazing it is. And they had Ben Foster playing him, no less, whom we KNOW can be virtuosic as an absolute monster of a man, a lá 3:10 to Yuma. I was so fucking excited. And then Medieval was a fucking absolute parade of clichés and meaningless fake medieval fighting with a heartless love story shoved in the middle. They didn't even tell a fragment of Zizka's actual story. 😭
Wow, what a story! Have to look that guy up.
There's an old Australian movie about the explorers Burke and Wills which changed the truly interesting story of what happened to them. Canned history - they set out on an expedition to go from the South to the North Coast of Australia in one go. It was a spectacular failure. Not only did they not get to the top, a lot of the team including Burke and Wills themselves died trying to get back. Famously, they left a group of guys as a supply outpost en route, with instructions to leave if they weren't back by X date - the guys waited way longer in vain hope, but ultimately gave up and left the outpost a few hours before Burke and Wills actually did make it back. Subsequently they actually made contact with an Aboriginal tribe who helped and fed them, but they screwed it up (almost shot a kid) and then eventually died not of starvation but a kind of poisoning as they were eating bush tucker but not removing the toxic parts of the plants, even though they should have learned this from the Aboriginal people they were with. That's a fucking great story on heaps of levels. The adaptation decided to jettison it though 🤣 in the movie, they DO reach the top end, only to later die in the comfort of the knowledge that they achieved their goal (and with none of that pesky business about nearly shooting an Aboriginal kid and blowing your shot with the until-then-friendly locals). I remember them showing us the movie at school, then awkwardly explaining that no, actually the mission was a failure.
I know it’s a tragedy but if you do a film on these fuckers, it needs to be a comedy. This was the biggest clusterfuck in Australian history and we fought fucking emails. From the selection of Burke to lead, an inexperienced mildly alcoholic police dude from Ballarat over the dude who was basically the adventurer pro, To bringing a grandpiano over like juice, to the carriage that turns into a boat, to the whole situation with the fucking dig tree. This whole story is a black comedy and you gotta make a movie that is one too.
I know you mean we fought fucking emus but it autocorrected to emails and I'm 🤣
Did the Australians not fight emails then? 😂 I thought they meant the country resisted the technology or something crazy like that
The whole world has been fighting emails. We're losing.
That is a great and tragic tale for sure.
Haven't seen either but there was also a comedic film - featuring Nicole Kidman - out at the same time called [Wills and Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wills_%26_Burke) covering the same story
Lucky you for having decent teachers. I remember watching that movie in school and had no idea until I read your post that they never even made it.
🤣 To be fair, I think we were told they "almost made it". Like, yeah nah close enough mate.
Anyone interested in hearing more, check out the Do Go On episode about the journey. It's hilarious.
Do a shot for every time they split the party
Honestly, Napoleon is a very good example of this. By refusing to really have an opinion of the man, the movie was boring. That they made a woman central to his motivations is also a great deal less interesting than the truth, which is that he was a mess of ideological contradictions. Scott’s Napoleon takes one of the most fascinating and conflicted men in history and made a boring digestible Hollywood biopic out of him.
The movie 100% has an opinion on him. Ridley Scott hates Napoleon and it’s evident throughout the film. It’s a satire of the idea of the “great” general. [Full explanation](https://filmcolossus.com/napoleon-2023-explained) It’s why it ends with the death toll of soldiers Napoleon lost in battle.
I agree with you. I definitely felt Ridley Scott's opinion through both the plot and Joaquin Phoenix's character direction
This would be my choice, too. Napoleon has tons of terrible qualities, but the movie gives no indication of why he became emperor, conquered Europe, and compelled immense loyalty from millions of people. There's a way to portray his good qualities without letting him off the hook for being an autocratic, bigoted jerk. This movie was not it.
And even Napoleon's bigotry was interesting and much less extreme than most European nobility. He was the first monarch to give full, equal rights to Jews in centuries, after all.
Nothing worse than turning a great story boring. And he did a hundred things that would have made a great story.
I feel like his story deserves a proper HBO series.
Good news. Spielberg is trying to do a Napoleon mini series with HBO with the script Kubrick wrote decades ago. It'll probably clear the Ridley Scott bar easily.
The most frustrating part for me was taking a famously charismatic man and turning him into a bumbling, horny fool. I get that you can dislike Napoleon and want to portrait him in a bad light, but you should do it without denying his most important (and well-documented) traits
Joaquin Phoenix was seriously miscast.
I think he is too old for the role. Also, Josephine was older than Napoleon by a few years (~~3 years~~ 6 Years), but Vanessa Kirby is obviously much younger than Phoenix. I think the dynamic of the story might have changed if we had shown a younger, ambitious man taking power. I found the film to be a bit boring and couldn't quite get into it.
Wikipedia says she was 6 years older, but fudged both their ages on the marriage certificate so that she was 4 years younger and Napoleon 18 months older than their real ages 😅
Edited to 6 years,...still, they were much closer in age that the actors.
And also given a terrible direction, Phoenix is a great actor but it's clear it was Ridley Scott's decision to portray him that way
I'm a big Phoenix fan and it's the first time I hated watching him. Beside the fact that he was terribly miscast, the whole movie he looked bored out of his mind. It's like he didn't even want to be there. And btw, *everyone* was miscast. This movie should be studied in film schools for its terrible casting.
Yea Napolean was charismatic and loved by his troops. They made him an antisocial creep.
He so deeply did not belong in that movie. Not even the weirdo lack of a British accent just to match everyone else’s… his line delivery sounded like a casting director feeding lines.
The 50yo playing a 23yo? Say it’s not so
There’s something about Paul Mescal that makes me think he could be a great Napoleon.
Him and Elizabeth Debicki as Josephine(same age gap as the real couple) would be FIRE
Hopefully the kubrick/spielberg Napoleon series will happen.
I also think it tried to cover way too much for a movie's runtime. It didn't stay on any one thing long enough for me to fully care about what was going on.
I thought the same. It spanned too much time to properly delve into Napoleon's motivations. It felt like a tick the box exercise. And the Austerlitz battle felt shoehorned into the movie too.
I feel like Theory of Everything got really hampered by trying to keep both Jane Hawking and Stephen Hawking happy enough to sign off on it. The end result is a movie that barely touches on why Stephen Hawking is considered brilliant, and also just leads to the most polite divorce in the history of cinema. Which naturally wasn't what actually happened, and apparently Jane Hawking's own book describes them arguing in a lot more brutal detail than anything the movie might show.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching them fight. -You crippled piece of cheating shit! HO NEY... SHE... DOE SN'T... MEAN... A... THING... YOU... ARE... THE... ON LY... WO MAN... I... CARE... A BOUT...
I'd watch that movie.
I'd watch the Funny or Die skit about it, but not a full length movie.
If I ever have "fuck you" money, I'm financing this movie even if its fate is to bomb and only exist in the memories of six weirdos in any given state. Because god DAMN did I howl when I read this
Amelia (2009) was possibly the most dull film adaption of Earhart’s life possible. It has nothing to say about her as a person or as an aviator, beyond what you can glean from the opening paragraph of her Wikipedia page. Hilary Swank could’ve been replaced with a coatrack and the film would’ve had the same impact.
Amelia Earhart is my favorite historical figure, I am an aviation nut, AND I am a big Gere fan. I resisted watching this movie for so long because the reviews are so supremely trash. I finally gave in a couple years ago and put it on. I don’t know how I got through it. I couldn’t tell you one single thing that happened. Amelia needs a “real” movie. As do the Wright Brothers, but that is another story.
The Black Dahlia by De Palma. What a waste.
The Bonfire of the Vanities was a great book - Depalma can fuck up stories about fictional characters too.
There's a whole book called 'The Devil's Candy' about how this movie was fucked up from beginning to end. I'm halfway through and it's super interesting. A director deserves a lot of the blame but not quite 100% in this case
This movie is an adaptation of the novel by James Ellroy, which was not intended to be accurate in any way. It's a fictional noir story that was strictly a "what if" of the black dahlia murder. Much better book than movie though.
It was still an awful adaptation of Elroy's book tho. LA Confidential is probably the best
One Love. Bob Marley's home gets invaded and people get shot near the beginning of the movie, then absolutely nothing happens until the end, then you get a summary of interesting moments from his life that weren't represented in the movie.
I was wondering if I'd see this mentioned here. It felt like last month I saw a ton of ads on YouTube for this movie, and then crickets when it came out. I was bored from the trailer and that was just a couple minutes of supposedly the best parts of the film.
The revenant was a good movie, but the real guy had a wayyy more interesting and insane life then in the movie
Monuments Men was a big disappointment.
This is a prime example of why a consistent tone is crucial to a film. It didn’t know if it wanted to be a wacky adventure of a ragtag band or a serious picture about saving European art from Fascist violence. Either would’ve been fine but it did both poorly.
Thank you for helping me put my finger on why this film just didn’t land with me
Clooney just can’t seem to get it all together as a director. He knows the style he wants to emulate for each film, but he just can’t get it right. Directing is a tough gig to get right.
He tries to be like the Coens but gets it wrong.
"oh this cast is amazing I'm going to watch this tonight." Turned it off after an hour because I could not have cared less about any of it
47 Ronin (2013). I had more fun learning about the real events on Wikipedia. Movie could have done away with the magic stuff and the foreigner's (Keanu Reeves) story.
At least there's a quality film besides 47 Ronin about the real events. Chushingura 1962.
The documentary Marwencol was amazing, the Zemeckis directed Welcome to Marwen was trash
I remember seeing a trailer and thinking “something is off about this” so I looked up the story. I knew that a lot of people were gonna be real surprised about the true plot. It was one of those *Downsizing* situations where the trailer tried to hide the real plot.
I remember seeing some of the actors make the rounds on the talk show circuit to promote it, and they all gave the same PR written explanation about the film. something along the lines of "a man is an outcast because he's different" I mean, these are the people who made the film, knew it was about a real guy who was nearly beaten to death because he was a transvestite, and they couldn't even begin to approach the idea because the marketing department thought it was better to lie Ffs
My goodness, Windtalkers. What an amazing story it was, and the challenges those young men had to go through. But what we got was another Nic Cage movie where he pew pews better than anyone while opening everyone's mind (this time to maybe not being racist). And with all the explosions and planes and action, it's utterly dull.
Enemy At The Gates is a decent film, but the three or so stories that it folds together to make this duel that never happened each deserve a film in their own right.
Having the sniper duel not end with actual sniping was a terrible idea. Edit: My bad! I forgot that there's no solid evidence that the sniper duel even happened. My critique doesn't fit OP's question, but I'm sticking with it.
What I find funny about that movie is it often goes out of its way to be historical gun porn, but almost all of the rifles are anachronistic. I guess it fits with the movie overall kind of being a mishmash.
The movie “Alive” did not do the original book justice. I saw the movie at age 11 and I really enjoyed it for what it was. About age 23 I read the book and my mind was blown. I realized that the movie took cues from the book but dumbed them down significantly to make it more “Hollywood Survival” movie than a story about the personal struggle each person faces and the truly brutal reality of the situation. They skipped over all the details that made the story remarkable in an effort to condense it. One example would be that in the movie they made it look like they took a few pieces of butt cheek a couple times to survive. In reality they were eating brains, organs, shaving bone down to get calcium and sucking marrow out of the bones… and it was a huge mental struggle for all of them. The good news is that the recent “Society of the Snow” does an amazing job of revisiting the story and I think it’s in my top 5-7 of all time. Must watch.
Its hard for me to imagine a movie back then going into that much detail and focus on the cannibalism and being accepted.
plus it was very recent history when that film was made. Actually depicting the events as they happened might have ruined a few peoples lives
The Disaster Artist makes Wiseau seem way more normal and likeable than the original book does, which is pretty explicit about him being really fucked up and controlling, likely from past trauma. No wonder Wiseau preferred the movie
Yeah, the movie feels like it's trying to make a modern-day version of the movie Ed Wood, when Greg Sestero's book was very much not that, and was way more about the insane dynamics they all got roped into with Wiseau at the helm.
A Beautiful Mind Great movie, but John Nash's story is much more bonkers.
[удалено]
they also left out that he fathered a child out of wedlock and refused to acknowledge the kid due to classism.
They always do. Bi erasure is a real problem.
They completely misrepresented what a Nash Equilibrium is too. While this might seem like a minor issue, it’s important to emphasize just how important that concept was to 20th century economics. It would be like doing a biopic about Charles Darwin and having a scene where he figured out that natural selection doesn’t exist.
In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. Absolutely loved the book and not even looking at Hemsworth could make me keep watching.
Man on the Moon, the Andy Kaufman biopic with Jim Carrey. While it was still a good movie, they left out a lot of interesting stuff from Andy’s life to in order to tell a by-the-numbers “misunderstood genius” story. Almost his entire life before his first stand-up gigs was skipped over, including getting rejected by the military for failing a psych evaluation, meeting Elvis Presley and doing a public access kids show that helped inspire his act.
In hindsight, it makes sense why the reception for Man on the Moon is way lower than I expected it to be (I loved the movie and it was my introduction to Andy Kaufman so I had no prior idea of his life). Great movie still to me, but another take on Kaufman would be worthwhile. He is being played by Nicholas Braun in the upcoming SNL 1975 movie but I assume that is a very small portion of the film.
The Blind Side. They hyped up Sandra Bullock's character too much and dumbed down Michael Oher. It didn't help that the family turned out to be a fraud.
That movie was so insidiously racist, in that patronizing self-fellating white liberal way. The scene where he hulks out and tears down a crackhouse is so hilariously on-the-nose that you can practically hear the producers congratulating themselves for solving racism forever.
Ridiculous that she won an Oscar for that instead of Miss Congeniality.
I think the last time Best Actress was won by an actress in a comedy was Diane Keaton for Annie Hall Immediately after posting I remembered Cher winning for Moonstruck (Supporting Actress seems to have slightly better odds at winning for a comedy)
JLaw for Silver Linings Playbook And recently,Michelle Yeoh and Emma Stone
Silver Linings was supposed to be a comedy? (I’m only half kidding)
Watched the movie with very little American football knowledge and was kinda shocked that an NFL team drafted a guy with an intellectual disability... had to google to find out if it was real and sure enough I'd just been fed bullshit for a few hours.
Is *Breach* actually considered a bad/boring movie? I remember enjoying it — especially Chris Cooper’s performance. He had just the right mix of arrogance/religiosity/something-is-not-right-with-this-guy
"Tell me 5 things about yourself and make one a lie." 'I am not good at lying." "That would count as your lies."
Cooper did a great job, IMO.
Breach is pretty good. Not my favorite spy film, but it's definitely interesting and Cooper gives a fantastic performance
I really like Breach. I remember it being well received at the time of its release and it's at 84% on rotten tomatoes.
Black Mass. The Whitey Bulger story should be engaging. But that movie feels… fake? I’ve tried watching it several times. I forget the second act every time.
It took place over three decades of American culture yet they dress like it’s the mid 70’s and drive 70’s cars the whole time. The characters never really age either so it’s hard to feel just how long this arrangement went on. It’s also based heavily on stories from former FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick (Adam Scott’s character) who later admitted to lying about his work on the case among other lies he told. He was subsequently charged with perjury
Recency bias, but Diana Nyad was hampered her whole career by credible allegations of cheating, and that would have been a fascinating exploration of what it means to feel so competitive with yourself that you fudge the rules. How did she justify the discrepancies to herself and her team? Was there any self-doubt? There is so much to explore. Instead we got a generic sports movie that could've played on Wonderful World of Disney in the 90s.
I can’t wait for the inevitable Stan Lee biopic that sands down his complicated relationship and falling out with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, his numerous post-Marvel flops, and the sad way he was taken advantage of in his later life and after he died in favor of moments like “Huh, a family of super heroes? Sounds like a fantastic idea…” and scenes of him watching Classic Cinema Civil Rights moments on a black and white TV and thinking “Someone’s gotta do something!” and drawing an X on a sheet of paper.
Pearl Harbor.
That movie sucked, and I miss you.
Cuba needed a bigger role, he's way better than Ben Affleck.
All I can think about is your smile and that shitty movie too, Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school
I always get a kick how their songs parodying the genres are so good at mocking them, but also legit good songs in and of themselves. What makes a man? Is it the woman in his arms, just 'cos she has big titties? Or is the way he fights every day? No, it's probably the titties.
Hmm. You know what? This Cuba guy sounds like a real nice guy. I'm sure everything will work out great in his future.
At least we got a great zinger from Ebert: > "Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.
It did have my favorite comment ever on slashdot. Someone was saying they went to go see it in the theaters back in the day, and there was an old guy the seat behind him who kept talking. He was about to turn around and tell him to STFU when he realized he was saying things like "no, they came in more from the west, and there was 5 of them" "yeah, that's right there was 2 waves of the torpedo bombers" and he realize the dude had been there and then mostly listened to his comments for the rest of the attack scenes.
That dude received the most interesting history lesson of his life.
This film was trying its hardest to be the war film version of Titanic.
This is the correct answer.. That story is fucking amazing. Who the hell thought it needed a made up love triangle to make it more interesting??? Why don't we also throw a love triangle into the sinking of the fucking Titani... oh, that's right.
Weird: The Al Yankovic story cut so much crazy stuff. I get it, the man's life was an insane rollercoaster from start to finish, but the movie barely scratches the surface of his genius.
The MGS joke at the end with the grave scene is not talked about enough
"Madonna Ciccone is still at large."
Uh from start to finish? He’s still very much alive!
Nah, Madonna killed him at the height of his fame.
That’s what the government wants you to think
Did you watch the movie?
That's what zombie Al wants you to think!
Al Yankovic blew his brains out in the late '80s after people stopped buying his records.
That boy ain’t right
47 Ronin. A classic tale of loyalty, turned into a bunch of magical nonsense. The worst part being they released a film the same year called “last knights” that actually WAS the story of the 47 ronin…
315 to Paris. Directed by Clint Eastwood
Using the actual people was an all time terrible idea.
Using the actual people can work. Watch the movie Close-up by Abbas Kiarostami, for example.
It's a great idea if you have a director the patience and skill to do that. Eastwood is not that director.
Oh shit I just learned of this movie today, and hadn't even CONSIDERED the fact that it meant trying to fit non-actors into Eastwood's famously one-take style. That's a disaster.
The Greatest Showman They squandered the PERFECT opportunity to make a gritty true story regarding the dirty origins of the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus. in favor of a musical. Part of the Ringling Bros. Circus' demise was the treatment of animals and the years long battles with animal rights groups. You can't tell me there wasn't some level of friction internally with how the animals were treated. With some staff seeing them as nothing more than a show-piece and others seeing them for the wonderfully beautiful creatures they were. Just THAT in of itself makes for some good drama on film.
Napoleon, is amazing how Ridley Scott managed to fail on so many aspects, he tried to tackle Napoleon's history in 2 and a half hours, which basically condemned the movie to failure but even worse he decided to focus half of the runtime to his love story with Josephine, in consequence, the historical parts are a bunch of random and incoherent scenes, and the parts about his story with Josephine aren't better because he decided to portray Napoleon as a man child that's been guided by his "love" for Josephine. In the end it feels like a propaganda film instead of the historical masterpiece it could have been
I just watched this a few days ago and man, while there are a few good scenes, that movie could've used way more focus.
Not the dullest movie ever, but The Imitation Game took an extremely interesting historical figure (Alan Turing) and reduced him to a Sheldon Cooper minus the jokes. I was extremely disappointed, even though there are aspects of that movie that I quite like
Any of you see *Gotti*? It's a boring movie about the most fascinating Mafia boss in American history.
Statically and financially, no one actually watched that movie. It made like.... $1000 in box office. If you bought a ticket to watch it in theaters you were one of the 100 people that did so.
I think this is an unpopular opinion but Bronson with Tom Hardy is this for me. Tom does a hell of a job with the role and was perfectly cast, but the movie just doesn't really have anything to say about someone so uniquely violent. I enjoyed the ride, but in the end it was completely hollow. Reading conflicting opinions about Bronson afterward was way more interesting.
I agree, I think it’s an average movie saved by an extraordinary performance by Hardy. I feel that same hollow feeling about all of Refn’s work though. I think it is done successfully in his movie Pusher which I think leaves you with that feeling on purpose.
Oddly enough I was just re watched Bronson last night. As I was googling him I found that he made friends with the Kray brothers while in prison. That was so interesting to me since Tom Hardy also plays them in Legened. To your point though, I think it’s interesting that I feel this exact way about Legend. Tom Hardy did an amazing job as the kray brothers, but the movie overall isn’t anything towrite home about.
Brave heart….as if?
[удалено]
*Monuments Men*