ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 20,259
- 11,398
I think LDC and Damon are both terrific actors. LDC is better looking but Damon has more charisma.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +2
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,806
- 3,883
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,806
- 3,883
I’m willing to stand up for Jackie Brown’s merits on its own (and a few other Tarantino flicks too) and as compared to other movies. Short version is that I think it’s a very clever and effective riff on the classic one-last-job heist story with an affecting courtship between likable characters smushed into the middle. (Of course you can credit Elmore Leonard for at least some of this). Certainly what catapulted Tarantino to his status is that his movies were so distinct and different than others at the time — the dialogue, the gleeful/unabashed pastiche and homage. Felt radical. Maybe really was. You’re not into him though and you’ve had ample opportunities to be. And trust me I 100% get that. Respect. My own feelings about him grow more complicated with each movie he’s released post Kill Bill. No need to prolong a Jackie Brown: Good or Bad? debate.
So I want to set that aside. You hit on a super interesting point regarding Tarantino. Other than maybe Godard, I’m not sure there’s a filmmaker who is as inseparable from his work. Every word uttered, every second of every scene is 100% undeniably Tarantino and maybe more importantly — he wants you to know that the entire time. He has this record. He used to watch this TV show. His sandbox. His toys. Jackie Brown is a bit of an exception, but even there, there’s a definite I LOVE THESE CHARACTERS vibe and all trappings around it clearly come from his personal tastes. So it’s hard to talk about a single film of his without talking about him or putting it relative to other films of his. He is, in a way, always the subject. He’s an infinite loop of himself. If one wants to interpret that as QT shoving his own head up his own posterior, I believe that fits too.
I’ll dip into spoiler mode here for those who haven’t seen the newest...
At some point when discussing any director/writer worth discussing, the conversation inevitably turns to comparing their works. But while directors like Scorsese or PTA do have their tics and their style and they have made films that are more personal than others, I don’t necessarily feel like their movies are about them — they meld to what the story is. Not Tarantino. He makes the stories fit him to the point where he’s just rewriting actual histories himself (perhaps a neat trick once, but one he’s now gone to enough it’s practically a cliche). Some are enamored with this. My affection seems to be dimming over time though.
Circling back to Jackie Brown (and once again discussing it within the context of his whole resume, haha), part of my ongoing disappoint with him is that when I talk about maturity, it’s odd to me that he seemed to hit peak maturity at movie 3. I’m not saying everything has to be grounded or more austere or anything like that, but it’s clear to me he’s steadily run the opposite way on the subsequent six movies. He’s got a major Peter Pan thing going. He refuses to grow up. Rewrite history once, it’s at least interesting. But to keep doing it feels a little ... childish. I foolishly thought or hoped he might have something interesting to say about late 60s Hollywood, but again the only takeaway really is: Hey guys, ain’t I so f***ing cool???
But that’s really always his point. [/spoilerl
Circling back to Jackie Brown (and once again discussing it within the context of his whole resume, haha), part of my ongoing disappoint with him is that when I talk about maturity, it’s odd to me that he seemed to hit peak maturity at movie 3. I’m not saying everything has to be grounded or more austere or anything like that, but it’s clear to me he’s steadily run the opposite way on the subsequent six movies. He’s got a major Peter Pan thing going. He refuses to grow up. Rewrite history once, it’s at least interesting. But to keep doing it feels a little ... childish. I foolishly thought or hoped he might have something interesting to say about late 60s Hollywood, but again the only takeaway really is: Hey guys, ain’t I so f***ing cool???
But that’s really always his point. [/spoilerl
I'm clearly still wrestling a little with his newest. Hahaha.
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 20,259
- 11,398
You guys are too hard on him. He's a fine actor.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
That movie was so relentlessly boring. I for one chalk it up to it being one of De Niro's only times as director, and he didn't have New Yawk biographical stuff to fall back on.
And I've never considered Matt Damon as a "great actor" by any stretch of the imagination but he's...serviceable. Y'know, he can do...stuff. I'd take him over Mark Wahlberg any day.
Hockeyfrilla
Swe prospect fanatic
OhCaptainMyCaptain
Registered User
OhCaptainMyCaptain
Registered User
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Final Girl
with Abigail Breslin, Alex Lugwig, and Wes Bentley. Also other, more annoying people.
Veronica (Breslin) trained from 5 years old by an emotionless William (Bentley) to be a spy (?) or assassin (?) or something to hunt down some bad men who killed his wife and kid iirc. So she does. Behold the spectacle of Abigail Breslin fighting Bjorn Ironside from the Vikings tv show with her tiny little fists. Why does Will take a decade and a half training a small girl to kill his nemeses instead of just picking up a gun and wasting them himself? Seems simpler to me.
On Netflix now. Don't watch it. It's idiotic.
*edit* Oh yeah, Bjorn and his three friends are serial killers who take blond women to the woods and kill them while wearing tuxedos and overacting at levels usually unseen outside Mexican soap operas.
with Abigail Breslin, Alex Lugwig, and Wes Bentley. Also other, more annoying people.
Veronica (Breslin) trained from 5 years old by an emotionless William (Bentley) to be a spy (?) or assassin (?) or something to hunt down some bad men who killed his wife and kid iirc. So she does. Behold the spectacle of Abigail Breslin fighting Bjorn Ironside from the Vikings tv show with her tiny little fists. Why does Will take a decade and a half training a small girl to kill his nemeses instead of just picking up a gun and wasting them himself? Seems simpler to me.
On Netflix now. Don't watch it. It's idiotic.
*edit* Oh yeah, Bjorn and his three friends are serial killers who take blond women to the woods and kill them while wearing tuxedos and overacting at levels usually unseen outside Mexican soap operas.
Last edited:
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Osprey
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2005
- 28,054
- 11,010
@senior edler reviewed and recommended 1945's The Body Snatcher, so I watched it and liked it enough to check out the other two Val Lewton-produced and Boris Karloff-starring horror films made around the same time.
The Body Snatcher (1945) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
Karloff has a deliciously sleazy role as the titular character who provides corpses to a doctor for dissection in early 19th century Edinburgh. The story is inspired by and references real life, high profile cases of grave robbing from that era, a time when there were too few legally obtainable corpses available for medical study. In that way, it's bit more of a historical, realistic horror than your usual monster horror, which I really appreciated. Karloff takes a little while to enter the picture, but takes it over once he does. Bela Legosi has a small role and the scene that he shares with Karloff is one of the film's highlights. I really enjoyed this. Thanks for the recommendation, senior edler. Perhaps you'll be interested in the next two films, which I found to be much in the same vein.
Isle of the Dead (1945) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
In 1912, during the Balkan Wars, a group of strangers, including Karloff as a Greek military general, find themselves quarantined on a small Greek burial island while an outbreak of plague claims them one by one. It's based on a famous set of paintings also named Isle of the Dead and Greek superstition plays a large role. Karloff is good, as usual, but this is one of his less dynamic and less clearly relished roles, probably because his character here isn't evil. It gets a little talky in the middle frame and loses some of the creepy atmosphere, but it really picks it up again in the end, especially with a chilling burial scene that felt ahead of its time. This is the weaker of the three films, but I really liked the setting and atmosphere of the film. I think that the idea of being stuck on a Greek burial island, especially in the midst of war, plague and local superstition, knowing that you might soon join its permanent residents, is just a unique and creepy setting that's perfect for a horror film.
Bedlam (1946) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
In 18th century London, the master of an insane asylum enjoys being cruel to his patients and treats them like animals, provoking sympathy and outrage from an aristocratic lady. Karloff returns to his evil element as the master and villain of the picture. I won't give anything away, but what his character has in store for the bleeding heart socialite is, well, evil. Similar to The Body Snatcher being heavily based on a series of real life grave robbings that prompted legal reform, Bedlam is based on a real life psychiatric hospital (whose nickname was Bedlam) that was well known for its poor treatment of the insane and prompted social reform. I really like that historical aspect of both films. You get a creepy story and feel that you're learning a little bit at the same time. Those are probably my favorite types of horror films.
Anyways, I liked all three. They're each so very similar in style and atmosphere, yet very different in setting. Perhaps partly for budgetary reasons, Val Lewton's horror films were more psychological than physical, focusing on atmosphere and fear over what's actually seen. For that reason, they may hold up a bit better as horror films than many others of that era that are hard to take seriously and feel campy whenever the horrors (ex. Frankenstein, the Mummy, Dracula) are on screen. These films may not be very scary any more, but they still retain some of their atmosphere and mood, which, I, personally, appreciate in horror films more than scares.
The Body Snatcher (1945) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
Karloff has a deliciously sleazy role as the titular character who provides corpses to a doctor for dissection in early 19th century Edinburgh. The story is inspired by and references real life, high profile cases of grave robbing from that era, a time when there were too few legally obtainable corpses available for medical study. In that way, it's bit more of a historical, realistic horror than your usual monster horror, which I really appreciated. Karloff takes a little while to enter the picture, but takes it over once he does. Bela Legosi has a small role and the scene that he shares with Karloff is one of the film's highlights. I really enjoyed this. Thanks for the recommendation, senior edler. Perhaps you'll be interested in the next two films, which I found to be much in the same vein.
Isle of the Dead (1945) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
In 1912, during the Balkan Wars, a group of strangers, including Karloff as a Greek military general, find themselves quarantined on a small Greek burial island while an outbreak of plague claims them one by one. It's based on a famous set of paintings also named Isle of the Dead and Greek superstition plays a large role. Karloff is good, as usual, but this is one of his less dynamic and less clearly relished roles, probably because his character here isn't evil. It gets a little talky in the middle frame and loses some of the creepy atmosphere, but it really picks it up again in the end, especially with a chilling burial scene that felt ahead of its time. This is the weaker of the three films, but I really liked the setting and atmosphere of the film. I think that the idea of being stuck on a Greek burial island, especially in the midst of war, plague and local superstition, knowing that you might soon join its permanent residents, is just a unique and creepy setting that's perfect for a horror film.
Bedlam (1946) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
In 18th century London, the master of an insane asylum enjoys being cruel to his patients and treats them like animals, provoking sympathy and outrage from an aristocratic lady. Karloff returns to his evil element as the master and villain of the picture. I won't give anything away, but what his character has in store for the bleeding heart socialite is, well, evil. Similar to The Body Snatcher being heavily based on a series of real life grave robbings that prompted legal reform, Bedlam is based on a real life psychiatric hospital (whose nickname was Bedlam) that was well known for its poor treatment of the insane and prompted social reform. I really like that historical aspect of both films. You get a creepy story and feel that you're learning a little bit at the same time. Those are probably my favorite types of horror films.
Anyways, I liked all three. They're each so very similar in style and atmosphere, yet very different in setting. Perhaps partly for budgetary reasons, Val Lewton's horror films were more psychological than physical, focusing on atmosphere and fear over what's actually seen. For that reason, they may hold up a bit better as horror films than many others of that era that are hard to take seriously and feel campy whenever the horrors (ex. Frankenstein, the Mummy, Dracula) are on screen. These films may not be very scary any more, but they still retain some of their atmosphere and mood, which, I, personally, appreciate in horror films more than scares.
Last edited:
OhCaptainMyCaptain
Registered User
Pulp Fiction - 8/10
I have watched parts of this before, but this was the first time I've ever watched it from beginning to end. Loved it very much. Not sure if I like this or Django Unchained more, but I really liked them both, so that's all that matters to me.
I have watched parts of this before, but this was the first time I've ever watched it from beginning to end. Loved it very much. Not sure if I like this or Django Unchained more, but I really liked them both, so that's all that matters to me.
Last edited:
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Thomas Crown Affair (original) 9.5/10. I've seen it 15 times. Great McQueen movie, probably my favorite.
My Best-Carey
My Best-Carey
OhCaptainMyCaptain
Registered User
Reservoir Dogs - 9/10.
I will have to watch these all again at some point, but I currently believe this is my favorite Tarantino film of those that I've fully watched. Still have some to go, but man I really enjoyed this one.
I will have to watch these all again at some point, but I currently believe this is my favorite Tarantino film of those that I've fully watched. Still have some to go, but man I really enjoyed this one.
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 20,259
- 11,398
Dan Kelly
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,625
- 972
Just like Batman or Spider-Man!!Amazing how he was able to jump from one building to the next, aye?
What a man!!!
Once Upon a time in Hollywood: 8/10
Had more time to think about this one and I think I was coming down on the finale of the movie when I first came here to lay praise at its feet. I still think it's in the upper half of Tarantino's films but it is flawed.
The great: Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio's performances are just fantastic all the way through. Pitt imo is the bigger strength of the film overall, but I do want to highlight Leo. Leo gets a lot of flak for being primarily a "yelling is acting" actor and sure, it's not like he doesn't have a moment like that in this film, but I think this was one of his best performances personally. The comedic timing and delivery he had in Wolf of Wall Street is on display again, but it's undercut by some very raw vulnerability and despair. Rick Dalton may be, in many ways, written as a caricature to be laughed at, but Leo elevates the character beyond what it could have been in the hands of a less capable actor.
From a purely technical perspective, Tarantino's talents are on display yet again. The cinematography, editing, sound work, and soundtrack are all top notch. And despite the overindulgence into his ode to classical cinema being a hinderance, it can't be denied that the film's forays into the faux film cutaways were very well constructed and produced.
The tension and atmosphere of the Manson compound was terrific from start to finish.
The Good: The finale was a nice little twist in the way it developed and pretty hysterical (though I do have a slight issue with it that I'll address below).
The disappointing: Margot Robbie and whoever it was that played Charles Manson were pretty severely underutilized. It's understandable that the movie wasn't so much about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson as it was about DiCaprio and Pitt's fictional characters, but if you're going to use the Sharon Tate murder as a backdrop for a newly created fiction and actually include Tate as a character then she should be developed a little more than she was. All Tate really got for character building was a little bit of backstory into her relationship with Polanski, a scene where she watched one of her own movies to revel in her growing fame a bit, and then a small handful of scenes of her joyfully bobbing her head to music. But as the film was gearing up for the finale it was so focused on Pitt and DiCaprio and its near constant cutaways to faux films/shows that I had nearly forgotten about her. Manson you only see once and from there is only vaguely referenced. I think he should have had more presence.
Pacino was really just there to...be there. We didn't really need to see his scene incurring self doubt in Dalton, or at the very least it really didn't need to be as long as it was.
The movie's pacing is just ultimately too slow. Because such a significant bulk of the run time is devoted to footage of Tarantino's own original faux films paying an homage to classical filmmaking, much of the film's attempts to slowly reveal plot devices that come together at the end really feel like a drag. And ultimately in it all coming together to:
All those developed elements really end up feeling like rather low quality/not very memorable foundations for the narrative. Rick and Cliff's story, and to an even greater degree, Sharon Tate's ultimately feel rather shallow and forgettable in the long run. Don't get me wrong, it's of a higher quality than the Hateful Eight, which to me was an extended nothing of an acting showcase grounded around a director thinking his gradually developing narrative is far more compelling than it really was.
Also, while it's nice to have a director care about the classic cinematic experience and filmmaking process enough to create a love letter like this, it really did get overindulgent after a while.
Also when Pitt is high at the end of the film, he's high at a comically ridiculous level. Pitt delivers on the comedic delivery, but it is a pretty absurd moment.
Ultimately I'd personally rank Tarantino's filmography like this:
Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Kill Bill 1, Django Unchained, Kill Bill 2, Death Proof, The Hateful Eight.
Had more time to think about this one and I think I was coming down on the finale of the movie when I first came here to lay praise at its feet. I still think it's in the upper half of Tarantino's films but it is flawed.
The great: Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio's performances are just fantastic all the way through. Pitt imo is the bigger strength of the film overall, but I do want to highlight Leo. Leo gets a lot of flak for being primarily a "yelling is acting" actor and sure, it's not like he doesn't have a moment like that in this film, but I think this was one of his best performances personally. The comedic timing and delivery he had in Wolf of Wall Street is on display again, but it's undercut by some very raw vulnerability and despair. Rick Dalton may be, in many ways, written as a caricature to be laughed at, but Leo elevates the character beyond what it could have been in the hands of a less capable actor.
From a purely technical perspective, Tarantino's talents are on display yet again. The cinematography, editing, sound work, and soundtrack are all top notch. And despite the overindulgence into his ode to classical cinema being a hinderance, it can't be denied that the film's forays into the faux film cutaways were very well constructed and produced.
The tension and atmosphere of the Manson compound was terrific from start to finish.
The Good: The finale was a nice little twist in the way it developed and pretty hysterical (though I do have a slight issue with it that I'll address below).
The disappointing: Margot Robbie and whoever it was that played Charles Manson were pretty severely underutilized. It's understandable that the movie wasn't so much about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson as it was about DiCaprio and Pitt's fictional characters, but if you're going to use the Sharon Tate murder as a backdrop for a newly created fiction and actually include Tate as a character then she should be developed a little more than she was. All Tate really got for character building was a little bit of backstory into her relationship with Polanski, a scene where she watched one of her own movies to revel in her growing fame a bit, and then a small handful of scenes of her joyfully bobbing her head to music. But as the film was gearing up for the finale it was so focused on Pitt and DiCaprio and its near constant cutaways to faux films/shows that I had nearly forgotten about her. Manson you only see once and from there is only vaguely referenced. I think he should have had more presence.
Pacino was really just there to...be there. We didn't really need to see his scene incurring self doubt in Dalton, or at the very least it really didn't need to be as long as it was.
The movie's pacing is just ultimately too slow. Because such a significant bulk of the run time is devoted to footage of Tarantino's own original faux films paying an homage to classical filmmaking, much of the film's attempts to slowly reveal plot devices that come together at the end really feel like a drag. And ultimately in it all coming together to:
Place Pitt and DiCaprio in the same house, to mislead the audience into thinking they're gonna see the Tate murders, to have Pitt's character tripping on acid as he's attacked, to give the Manson family members cause to want to kill Cliff, to have foundation for the dog to be a believable threat in the ensuing fight, to have Rick have the backstory as to why he'd have a flamethrower available...all of it
All those developed elements really end up feeling like rather low quality/not very memorable foundations for the narrative. Rick and Cliff's story, and to an even greater degree, Sharon Tate's ultimately feel rather shallow and forgettable in the long run. Don't get me wrong, it's of a higher quality than the Hateful Eight, which to me was an extended nothing of an acting showcase grounded around a director thinking his gradually developing narrative is far more compelling than it really was.
Also, while it's nice to have a director care about the classic cinematic experience and filmmaking process enough to create a love letter like this, it really did get overindulgent after a while.
Also when Pitt is high at the end of the film, he's high at a comically ridiculous level. Pitt delivers on the comedic delivery, but it is a pretty absurd moment.
Ultimately I'd personally rank Tarantino's filmography like this:
Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Kill Bill 1, Django Unchained, Kill Bill 2, Death Proof, The Hateful Eight.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
For me Pulp Fiction edges out RD as the more mature, developed work.
You forgot From Dusk til Dawn. *edit* Oh wait, his BFF directed that. nvm.
And Pulp Fiction followed closely by Reservoir Dogs are the only two I've really liked a lot. Inglorious Basterds annoyed the hell out of me just for the revisionist history of WWII; in my family that's a very sore spot. The opening scenes where Landa was interrogating the French farmer was really, really good...then it was all downhill from there imho. Jackie Brown was so overrated it wasn't funny. Just ended up being boring. And I hated the Kill Bills. Much like the last Harry Potter or Hunger Games movies they went for the cash grab and made two movies where one would have done. Such an egotrip. After that I lost all interest in watching new Tarantino work. Just got sick of the try-hard movie nerd white guy who clearly wishes he was black.
I can understand people not liking Basterds but it's one of my favorite movies. I just go into it knowing it's basically a fantasy war fiction with a historic coat of paint. I find it to be Tarantino's best blend of storytelling, cinematography, pacing, and humor. Sure the revisionist fantasy is absurd, but I accepted it from the first time I watched it that it's not meant to be serious or true to life. And in keeping that in mind I find it to be his most entertaining and well crafted movie. Also worth mentioning that I only find roughly half of his films good to great.
Osprey
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2005
- 28,054
- 11,010
Nashville (1975) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)
I don't understand how this is considered one of the greatest films ever made. It has almost no plot. It's just an arduous 2 hours and 40 minutes of jumping between literally dozens of characters doing little besides socializing, doing ordinary activities and singing songs. Regarding the latter, I like country songs, but literally over an hour of the film is made up of performances that serve little purpose but to entertain the viewer. It's as though director Altman tried to replicate the experience of sitting in on the Grand Ole Opry and forgot that he was making a movie. It's not like, say, A Star Is Born, in which the songs have meaning and are expressions of the character development that we've been witnessing. We learn very little at all about the characters in Nashville, much less see them develop, so the hour of songs is just there to make the film longer and more entertaining (because the vast majority of time spent out of song certainly isn't).
The film is just 2.5 hours of meaningless performances and scenes until, finally, in the final few minutes, a handful of the dozens of characters are actually in the same place at one time for a shocking conclusion. It's like the film equivalent of Ravel's Bolero: deliberately putting you to sleep with an overlong and predictable performance just so that, in the final few seconds, it can surprise you with something completely out of left field. Basically, 2.5 hours of your time are wasted just so that the final few minutes can be disturbing and stick with you. For that reason, I can't imagine how people could sit through this film more than once, watching hours of scenes that hardly matter and aren't very entertaining just to get to an ending that they already know. Anyways, judging by Rotten Tomatoes, a lot of people like this film, but it feels to me like one of the most overrated films ever.
I don't understand how this is considered one of the greatest films ever made. It has almost no plot. It's just an arduous 2 hours and 40 minutes of jumping between literally dozens of characters doing little besides socializing, doing ordinary activities and singing songs. Regarding the latter, I like country songs, but literally over an hour of the film is made up of performances that serve little purpose but to entertain the viewer. It's as though director Altman tried to replicate the experience of sitting in on the Grand Ole Opry and forgot that he was making a movie. It's not like, say, A Star Is Born, in which the songs have meaning and are expressions of the character development that we've been witnessing. We learn very little at all about the characters in Nashville, much less see them develop, so the hour of songs is just there to make the film longer and more entertaining (because the vast majority of time spent out of song certainly isn't).
The film is just 2.5 hours of meaningless performances and scenes until, finally, in the final few minutes, a handful of the dozens of characters are actually in the same place at one time for a shocking conclusion. It's like the film equivalent of Ravel's Bolero: deliberately putting you to sleep with an overlong and predictable performance just so that, in the final few seconds, it can surprise you with something completely out of left field. Basically, 2.5 hours of your time are wasted just so that the final few minutes can be disturbing and stick with you. For that reason, I can't imagine how people could sit through this film more than once, watching hours of scenes that hardly matter and aren't very entertaining just to get to an ending that they already know. Anyways, judging by Rotten Tomatoes, a lot of people like this film, but it feels to me like one of the most overrated films ever.
Last edited:
Trap Jesus
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 28,686
- 13,458
Ya, Basterds is my favorite as well. It's just jam packed with memorable scenes, it's Tarantino's funniest movie, and it has one of the greatest characters of all-time IMO with Hans Landa.
I love Pulp Fiction and it's VERY close, but I think Basterds is just a step above, and I find myself going back to it more often.
Live in the Now
Registered User
I haven't seen this yet, but it's a satire about the time in question. The characters and songs are not at all meant to be taken seriously.
heatnikki
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2018
- 163
- 44
Colossal - I really enjoyed it, I can see it as a bit of a marmite film but really surprised it isn't rated higher by many.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Australian Open - Men Jannik Sinner vs Alex De MinaurWagers: 2Staked: $2,700.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
NFC Championship (6) Washington Commanders at (2) Philadelphia EaglesWagers: 3Staked: $8,150.00Event closes - 5 days from now- Updated: