Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,439
- 19,485
Ass/10. That is really, truly bad.
It’s a very special rating to save my fellow film lovers from suffering like I did.
Ass/10. That is really, truly bad.
Serpico-1973
Just read the book and impressed with how much of the story is in the film. Al Pacino is awesome as the honest cop who doesn't want to be part of the corruption he sees around him. Serpico's attempts to bring up the evidence of what he has experienced to his superiors and officials reminded me of the bureaucracy in Kafka's The Castle. Appreciated that there is little music or violence for this type of film. Maybe my favorite police film.
Serpico-1973
Just read the book and impressed with how much of the story is in the film. Al Pacino is awesome as the honest cop who doesn't want to be part of the corruption he sees around him. Serpico's attempts to bring up the evidence of what he has experienced to his superiors and officials reminded me of the bureaucracy in Kafka's The Castle. Appreciated that there is little music or violence for this type of film. Maybe my favorite police film.
Any of you seen a Korean film called The Attorney which was added on Prime Canada? Watch or no watch?
Middling movie. I felt I needed more knowledge of the political context to come close to scratching the surface of the story's significance. Here's my review at the time:Based on the life of the 16th President of South Korea, it is the 15th best selling Korean movie of all-time. I have not seen it yet, but it is somewhere on my backlog, and I know people who like it.
Personally, I will watch anything with Song Kang-ho in it, especially after 2010. By that time, he is rather selective with his roles, so there is a sense of quality in his projects.
The Attorney (2014) Directed by Yang Woo-seok 5A
Set during the South Korean military dictatorship in the '80s, Song, a rich, successful tax lawyer (Song Kang-ho), though one born on the wrong side of the tracks, takes on the case of a student accused of being a Communist. Based on real events, The Attorney tries to tell an important story, but rookie director Yang Woo-seok is not always up to the task. The first half of the movie spends way too much time establishing the fact that Song is a decent man who has no intention of shaking the foundations of South Korea's justice system. When the lawyer finally commits to defending the student, the movie transforms itself into a familiar but watchable court room thriller. However, the all-too-expected climax is underwhelming in the extreme, especially as the actual impact of the trial remains unclear. Song is among South Korea's best and most likeable actors, and he boisterously dives into this role. But he would have benefited from tighter direction, and the movie as a whole could have used more explanation by the end of the film. I should add that I watched The Attorney in a theatre full of what appeared to be South Korean expatriots, and they gave it a loud ovation at the end. Obviously, they had fewer reservations than I did about the movie.
To Live and Die In LA (1985) - 7.5/10
Almost a natural progression for Friedkin from The French Connection. Basically take the same film and sprinkle a bunch of coke on it and give it an LA aesthetic to combine with the 80s. It's not as thin on character but the strength is still more mood and visual than plot. You certainly have a better villain and while the chase scene goes on for tedious lengths but it hits harder like everything else.
Just a shame that the weird ending feels like it was from a TV movie rather than a more polished Hollywood one.
More character than Popeye Doyle? A better villain than Frog One??? Mon dieu.To Live and Die In LA (1985) - 7.5/10
Almost a natural progression for Friedkin from The French Connection. Basically take the same film and sprinkle a bunch of coke on it and give it an LA aesthetic to combine with the 80s. It's not as thin on character but the strength is still more mood and visual than plot. You certainly have a better villain and while the chase scene goes on for tedious lengths but it hits harder like everything else.
Just a shame that the weird ending feels like it was from a TV movie rather than a more polished Hollywood one.
To Live and Die In LA (1985) - 7.5/10
Almost a natural progression for Friedkin from The French Connection. Basically take the same film and sprinkle a bunch of coke on it and give it an LA aesthetic to combine with the 80s. It's not as thin on character but the strength is still more mood and visual than plot. You certainly have a better villain and while the chase scene goes on for tedious lengths but it hits harder like everything else.
Just a shame that the weird ending feels like it was from a TV movie rather than a more polished Hollywood one.
To Live and Die In LA (1985) - 7.5/10
Almost a natural progression for Friedkin from The French Connection. Basically take the same film and sprinkle a bunch of coke on it and give it an LA aesthetic to combine with the 80s. It's not as thin on character but the strength is still more mood and visual than plot. You certainly have a better villain and while the chase scene goes on for tedious lengths but it hits harder like everything else.
Just a shame that the weird ending feels like it was from a TV movie rather than a more polished Hollywood one.
V for Vendetta (2005) directed by James McTeigue
In a dystopian London controlled by a fascist regime, a mysterious anarchist known by the name of V (Hugo Weaving) sets off a revolution with the aid from Evey (Natalie Portman), a girl caught up in his revolution. V for Vendetta was a formative film for many in my generation when it came out, however I did not watch it when I was at an impressionable age and instead I’m watching it 16 years after it was released and I’m sorry to report that just not very good. Everything about it is just cheesy as hell, from the dialogue to the action and the characters. It looks like and feels like a TV movie and I don’t really understand why some hold this in high acclaim. I guess you had to have seen it in 2005. It’s full of just complete stilted and unnatural performances and dialogue that tries to articulate a deeper meaning as a "smart blockbuster film" than what it actually represents. Not trying to restart The Great Pretentiousness Debate but this is an example of a pretentious film in that it uses a wealth of very shallow literary and artistic references to try to convey some deeper meaning that doesn’t actually exist. A film that’s aiming for gravitas and begging for viewers to say “wow that’s deep, you’re really smart” but it doesn’t really deserve it and comes off as just stupid and goofy unless you’re an impressionable teenager.
Very proud of my teenaged self for having seen it for the dreck that it is at the time. I watched it maybe 2-3 years after it was released.
Just a really dumb film. A film that markets itself as a film for the thinking man, when it is really a film for the man who likes to think he's a thinking man but who actually is not. Such as most teenagers