Everything fell apart when they introduced that stupid fucking rocket with the bombs. How did they even get the bombS up in space in the correct spots and then get them to stay in that location? Not looking forward to season 2 tbh.
This was a huge waste of time. Boring af.
As someone "smart" Saul is easily the dumbest person on the show. Why did they write him like this?
Am I crazy or did some of the dialogue audio get messed up in this episode? Almost like something very slightly muffling the audio of Jin and the shooter.
The standard for what constitutes a quality movie has plummetted so badly in recent years. Dune 2 is another example. Yet another movie that focuses on psychosis, pornographic violence, and very little else. The chemistry between Zendaya and Timothee is nonexistent, not that it matters because their relationship, as is in most cases with superficial films that inject a love story, is as inauthentic and if anything adds to the lack of substance of the film as a whole. What is all the fuss about!?
I tolerated the first episode, but honestly this second episoder is pure cringe. Elizabeth Holmes is portrayed not as a grifter POS but a hip-hop loving nymphomaniac who breaks out in dance every five minutes. And the rest of the cast has suddenly become terrible versions of a Judd Apatow movie.
The only scene that was worth a damn was Paul's speech at the Circle; the rest of the movie felt like watching a trailer for a graphic novel adaptation of the book. The dialogue for the most part was atrocious, especially for the Harkonnens. Zendaya's line delivery and mannerisms were too "American", compared to the other Fremen, breaking the Middle Eastern-inspired atmosphere.
In 2024, conflating the terms "psychotic" and "psychopathic" is inexcusable. How the fuck did none of the story editors/producers pick that one up?
01x02 - Path of the Dead: 7.8/10 (Impressive)
The cinematography is stunning, and some stills are works of art in their own right. It was this aspect of the episode that pulled me in, combined with the almost poetic dialogue. The two leads, Emily Blunt and Chaske Spencer do a fine job, and the episode’s portrayal of conflict and societal commentary is handled artistically while remaining grounded. It lends nuance to everything instead of simply being black and white, which I like. “Path of the Dead,” the second episode, is a solid follow-up to the debut and masterfully lays the setting for a gripping tale, even if we don’t know where it’s heading just yet.
Meh… third Haneke film i’ve seen and third i’ve given a 5/10 rating.
Might be disturbing to some ppl but there’s films out there a lot more disturbing (im looking at i Gasper Noe).
Tbh it’s dreary and kind of boring.
Did you all give high ratings to make a point? Half way through the movie I could not keep my eyes open. Seriously... 8.7 / 10 in IMDB. Crazy!
In this mocumentary you will learn that 1+1=7 and that there is not a conspiracy theory that MAGA people won't fall for!
Didn't think I would say this on a film about a farting corpse... but it was kinda beautiful. Dano was terrific and Radcliffe has never been so alive on screen. A quiet gem.
The real curse is having to watch this show.
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
I see a lot of positive reactions so I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t think the show earned this ending. I was definitely surprised and there was a level of emotion, but the ending mostly just made me mad. The conclusion felt rushed, and it just feels like Alan went through all this and put up with everything all for nothing. I understand that he went on his own internal and reflective journey with his relationship with his son and that was paid off at the end, so it technically wasn’t all for nothing, but I’m not a fan of how the end played out. The emotional weight with Alan’s kids should’ve hit so much harder than it did but they were barely even characters in the show so it falls short because I feel no real connection to them. So for me this finale was more annoying and frustrating than the captivating tragedy they were likely going for.
guys don’t miss They Cloned Tyrone! it sucks that Netflix released on Barbenheimer weekend but genuinely a great film all around and the main cast is so good, all their banter is top notch, sharp social commentary and a real retro throwback to the 70s
Premiere was a riot. Couldn't be happier Nathan is back to dissect our minds
I recently watched the first episode of "History of the World Part Two" with high expectations. Unfortunately, I found the episode to be quite disappointing due to the bad acting and poor writing. Despite my initial excitement, the lackluster performances and uninspired writing left me feeling underwhelmed.
While I may give the series another chance with the second episode, based on my experience with the first episode, I am not hopeful that the quality will improve. I value strong performances and compelling writing, and "History of the World Part Two" failed to deliver on both fronts in its first outing.
I haven't read the book and I really don't like the movies. This movie just feel soulless with flat and bland characters where their motivation is unclear and with a hollow plot.
When it comes to the pacing and action, yes action, is was just so boring. The chemistry between the two leads is just non-existent.
Some of the editing was also really weird.
Paul ventures out on a solo quest and all of the sudden they attack an spice harvester.
I really don't understand why some people say it is intensive, epic, spectacular and a masterpiece.
The visuals and acting from some of the cast (Butler) saves it from a lower score.
This show tries to kill you by boredom or depression. It’s a waste of my time and clearly of money for the producers.
2 episodes and i still don’t get why i didn’t stop after the first one.
Weak character, weak storyline, flat narrative. Avoid at any cost!!
Fascinating documentary on what was a negligible late 90s festival. The director makes the case Woodstock 99 was an expression of “white rage” and examines the musical performances as a bunch of shallow musicians egging on the primarily “frat bot” crowd to misbehave — which they did.
I remember in 99, thinking how awful music had become and witnessing every event being horrible, so I would make the case it wasn’t just Woodstock 99, but everything that year was filled with chaos. Whether its the the fault of MTV sinking backwards to pop acts, the rage of nu-metal acts or a statement on “white behaviour”, its up to you in the end. What you get out of this documentary will entirely depend on where you fall in relation to those aspects. Gen-Z respectively might not care at all and see Woodstock 99 as a primordial pig stew of their parents culture war. Gen X however, might be able to squeeze some meaning out by remembering where they stood in relation the the nonsense at the event. I know I was too busy trying to build a career and saw the burning stages on the news as a sign that American alternative music culture had completely failed to escort us into the diverse daydream of a Nirvana based early 90s promise.
Lollapalooza 1 and 2 were better than Woodstock 99 or 94 (the latter is constantly referenced as being this ideal version when in fact, the absolutely never-mentioned Beastie Boy "Tibetan Freedom Concerts" were the real evolution of the Woodstock vibe.)
So, its a good documentary, but it’s based -- because it doesn’t consider the "better festivals" I mentioned above, which require critical examination in our culture on how we do a modern peace event. For example, where's the Uygher Awareness music festival (to match the Tibetan Freedom Concerts of the 90s) or the Anti-Fascist Music Festival (to match the LiveAid Anti-Apartheid festivals of the 80s, which can be argued effectively ended apartheid in South Africa.) Right? Where's the discussion on what worked instead of documentaries on festivals that failed due to privledge and whiteness - we know about Fyre, we know about Woodstock 99. That examination is nowhere to be seen, therefore the documentary is based -- a symptom of an overwhelmingly cultural bankruptcy in American culture right now.
America had a single export in the 90s -- our music culture, an attitude of anger towards racism and white supremacy, a repulsion towards the objectification of women and the privileged materialism of the 80s, all wrapped up in our music scene (conscious hip hop included within Nirvana, RATM and even Janes Addiction/Sublime/Pixies mystiques.) All of those mystiques were systemically dismantled by a war-mongering mindset of corporate commodification of (a) our concerts and (b) the acts that played in them. By the late 90s we were back where the 80s left off, overwhelmed with contrived boy bands (Limp Bizcuit included) through various consolidations of media companies, betrayals of peace-love-unity vibe and "colonization" of a rave scene that was probably the most vital historical outgrowth of it all. The commentary by Moby in the documentary contains gems to this perspective which can be expanded on tenfold for another documentary -- we'll see. The point is that Durst did go on to run Sony Music, so his moronic display in 99 had some kind connection to what the record companies saw him as beholden to. As a kind of white-Kali destroyer to the white-Christ Moby figure.
These aspects of white-rage, the subtleties explored in Woodstock 99 are now active in US politics (down to the unironically adornments of "red hats" repeating echoes of Fred Dursts moronic manipulations of the crowd. Much like the red hats storming the capitol looking to "break stuff." In that sense, Woodstock 99 begins a conversation about the poisons in American culture actively still destroying us, that began in the late 90s. What we do know is that the exported American coolness that went out to the rest of the world — our musical diversity, our punk rock, our skate scene, our real street music, our real trauma inspired grunge scene -- have been gutted by something. The mystery of what that was will not be answered in Woodstock 99 but maybe in a future revolution we will rediscover who we are again. The central question Woodstock 99 brings up therefore is not so much how to get it back, but to ask ourselves why, in 22 years since has not a single "good cause" festival occurred.
I think I saw an edit where they removed all the comedy :person_shrugging:
What on earth did I just watch and why was it so long and why are people praising this to high heavens? Seriously, just... what? This is a 2 hour long trainwreck, with a side of junk for some reason.
Worst thing is I can almost see it as an actual documentary, and it's scary because it might well work better that way. Still too long either way though.
People will look back at Southland Tales after Trump and say Richard Kelly predicted the entire decade, and them some. Those who don't get the film just have low IQ's and can't see the brilliance of it. A hitman with amnesia, a reality television president, the bs conspiracies and angry vets while Tech Companies create an elite political class existing off human capital a midst a climate apocalypse (followed by a nuclear one); welcome to 2020.
But this was made in '06. Right it was, and it belongs in the canon of "Idiocracy", almost serves as a prequel. You've got all the elements of the sh-tstorm we're in from Q-Anon to Reality Television presidents to traumatized Iraqi vets on a mission to Facebook dictatorships and mysterious foreign interference's communicated through bizarre corrupt Homeland Security type organizations.
This movie is about the overall dumbing down of America before the apocalypse but after what we thought in 2006 a post-911 world would bring us to -- Dwayne Johnson, The Rock, represent this playing a hitman with amnesia throughout the story. A guy who doesn't remember what he's fighting for. People just use the word "Freedom" to justify their neurotic sadism and greed throughout the film. Justin Timberlake, an Iraqi vet, who predicts Jaoquim Pheonixs' Joker performance, plays an insane militia vet in his self-cutting musical numbers. It's a cinematic masterpeice and Timberlakes greatest paradoxical performance.
Warning : The "conservative media" is a central character in itself this film and if you don't understand how FOX news is hate speech propaganda you will, right off the bat, not understand the premise of the movie from scene 1. Instead of seeing how each character is either being manipulated by the media or is making the media that manipulates others you will just see moving pictures you wont understand. Unfortunatley, this is because your brain doesn't understand that media is created and since Kelly doesn't spell out to the inept audience what each characters motivation is, you would have to think that out. Which for 42% of Americans is very difficult to do. If you actually believe one single solitary ounce of Q-Anon or InfoWars BS you won't see the cutting humor of this film. I feel sad for you because you are stuck in a rabbit-hole by people who watched this movie in 2006 and created their little BS cultspracies. This movie teaches you how to mess with people and how politcal sides are all horseplay. Only culture-makers understand what this film is saying because Richard Kelly, the director, thought his Donnie Darko audience was smarter. Followers of conservative media who actually see the world through FOX news absurdity are numb to the profound absurdity of SouthLand Tales -- because it's talking about you easily reactionary freaks who see the world like Dwayne's character -- paranoid, amnesiac and scare sh*tless of terrorists. Meanwhile, he's the central terrorist. It's a genius judgement of domestic militant Americans today.
The people who don't see this movie as a prophecy, including a great performance by Kathy Griffith as this muscle bound feminist liberal ripping political heads (something she ACTUALLY did in 2016 much to her professional shigrin), are blind to prophetic cinema. Then again, the word Republican/Conservative are now synonymous with Corporate Environmental and Human Right annihilation, Cult Racism, White Supremacy, Sadism and greed -- so anything against that is considered anti-fascist. Don't get me wrong, If there ever was an Antifa Manifesto that American Nazi's couldn't interpret because of their traumatic FOX induced brain injuries, this movie is it. I doubt they even understood that sentence. My only contention is if this was a prequel to Mike Judges' classic comedy"Idiocracy", where the future of American is beyond stupid, I wonder what film could END the trilogy.
Southland Tales is about the fall of America by paranoia, media manipulators and toxic masculinity (even in women), who carry out the apocalypse dictated to them by elite's, literally in a bubble. I won't give away the ending...but hint, hint -- look outside your window.
Cheap cop out way of writing an ending. The intended effect Safdie was going for was everyone will wonder, “why all the gentrification themed - non-magical realism 9 previous episodes?” They’ll think he’s a genius but realize theres little rewatch value. For this ending? Nah. Safdies character was cringe, the episodes were cringe. Stone and Fielder made the experiment slightly watchable but I see this series as sealing Safdie for me as having gone beyond his expertise. It seems he was given an opportunity by the studio with the seed of an idea that never really grows up - rather it just evaporates.
Beautiful, subtle, beautiful. I wouldn't have changed one second of this film.
Problematic pacing but its Gilliams next addition to the Brazil universe. I should be lucky to get anything from such a prolofic director. Unfortunately, it took me 3 viewings to finish and I couldn’t shake the feeling it was “required viewing” over wanting to watch. It earned its 6 stars, it seemed hard to make.
If you're a woman this is a good movie to test if your tinder date is a garbage person. If they say "It was a cool movie," chances are they are garbage people. It's Brown bunny for GenZ. The social equivalent of Vincent Gallo and Chloe Sevigny without Fiona Apple 10 years ago on repeat with a reality television star convincing an indie filmmaker (Sean Baker) to make a film entirely around his junk -- the whole movie resolves to SImon Rex's penis. Previous commentors who are stanning for this movie need to srsly ask themselves some hard questions. 1 mini bags of popcorn.
It may be a co-writing and co-directorial debut for Stanley Tucci, but it is a last chance for his character. Facing bankruptcy and foreclosure, two Italian brothers have one shot to save their struggling restaurant.
Shalhoub and Tucci have mediocre Italian accents which are often distracting. Tucci seems to occasionally slip out of it completely. I feel like it would have been better to just make the brothers second-generation Italian American so they wouldn't have to worry about accents.
The rest of the movie is quite good. There's cooking sections that you can taste and a fun party atmosphere during the big night. There's plenty of Italian culture and tradition.
One of the funniest movies of all times.
Terry Gilliam you are a fuck lunatic, but I rather prefer the Brazil movie!
