films you've seen recently and would NOT recommend
- Thread starter bruno
- Start date
rubberdingyrapids
Well-known member
there are little bits where its meant to be funny, but it isnt really THAT funny or sustained, and its not that fresh now to take the whole 'lol, tyrants' POV.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yesterday we watched The Color of Money, I totally thought I'd seen it before, but apparently not cos none of it seemed even slightly familiar. Also, I don't think I knew it was Martin Scorsese, and I think that the reason for that is cos it's never mentioned in the same breath as Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets etc which makes total sense cos they are all seen as classics, and I can't imagine that anybody in their right mind would seriously suggest that this is a classic.
I suppose that from the start I didn't really have much in the way of high expectations, and when I paused to ask myself why that was, I realised that I have this built in idea that Tom Cruise is shit. Or that's not it. He has his place, if you want someone to jump off a mountain on a motorbike or grin maniacally while fighting three baddies and hanging upside down from a fighter plane he's your guy, but I have never known him to come close to creating any kind of emotion in me while watching any of his films. That's not even that much of a criticism cos Mission Impossible or Top Gun or Jack Reacher or whatever don't bother to try for that, in fact they actively avoid any kind of boring emotion that might get in the way of the relentless stunts - unless you count anger or insane adrenaline induced euphoria as emotions. It's just not what he does. Tom Cruise is in the films to be an impossible hero who is literally the best in the world at every single thing he tries his hand at. I do remember thinking that he was the perfect person to cast as an invincible pool player who gets really annoyed when he has to pretend to be bad so he loses to people he plans to hustle. I imagine that's probably what happened in real life when it was being made... "No Marty I'm not losing to this guy" "But Tom, your character is actually a better pool player and he's letting him win. Don't worry you'e still the best" "Sure but isn't there some way for him to hustle them without losing? It's completely unrealistic that that guy could even think he could beat me, surely you can see that?".
Anyway, Paul Newman does his best but he's struggling with a terrible script and having to act with a spoiled child who is incapable of properly playing a spoiled child on screen. The stakes have to be the lowest ever too, Paul Newman's character is rich and puts up the money for Tom Cruise to play with, but there is never any sense that it will run out or that it really matters if he loses it. Also Tom Cruise's pool player seems to be completely invincible and so the only question is will he a) win straight away and make a small amount of money or b) manage to pretend to lose a couple so that he can bet big and then win a large amount of money.
So in this low stakes, low tension set up they manufacturer a load of stupid disagreements about things that don't really matter, in fact if you pay attention you'll probably notice that the arguments don't even make much sense. What are they actually arguing about? So that's the film, oh and it's really long, and it has a really terrible soundtrack with loads of brown sounding white boy pseudo blues. There is a pointless cameo from Iggy Pop. But that's about it. It's just a bad boring film really.
I saw a thing called Mississippi Grind not too long back which has quite a similar set-up with Ryan Reynolds staking some loser to play poker in low rent dives so they can make it to the big game. It's not without its flaws but it's a million times more gritty and dirty and fun and effective so if you do want to see gamblers and the seamy underside of their world go for that instead.
I suppose that from the start I didn't really have much in the way of high expectations, and when I paused to ask myself why that was, I realised that I have this built in idea that Tom Cruise is shit. Or that's not it. He has his place, if you want someone to jump off a mountain on a motorbike or grin maniacally while fighting three baddies and hanging upside down from a fighter plane he's your guy, but I have never known him to come close to creating any kind of emotion in me while watching any of his films. That's not even that much of a criticism cos Mission Impossible or Top Gun or Jack Reacher or whatever don't bother to try for that, in fact they actively avoid any kind of boring emotion that might get in the way of the relentless stunts - unless you count anger or insane adrenaline induced euphoria as emotions. It's just not what he does. Tom Cruise is in the films to be an impossible hero who is literally the best in the world at every single thing he tries his hand at. I do remember thinking that he was the perfect person to cast as an invincible pool player who gets really annoyed when he has to pretend to be bad so he loses to people he plans to hustle. I imagine that's probably what happened in real life when it was being made... "No Marty I'm not losing to this guy" "But Tom, your character is actually a better pool player and he's letting him win. Don't worry you'e still the best" "Sure but isn't there some way for him to hustle them without losing? It's completely unrealistic that that guy could even think he could beat me, surely you can see that?".
Anyway, Paul Newman does his best but he's struggling with a terrible script and having to act with a spoiled child who is incapable of properly playing a spoiled child on screen. The stakes have to be the lowest ever too, Paul Newman's character is rich and puts up the money for Tom Cruise to play with, but there is never any sense that it will run out or that it really matters if he loses it. Also Tom Cruise's pool player seems to be completely invincible and so the only question is will he a) win straight away and make a small amount of money or b) manage to pretend to lose a couple so that he can bet big and then win a large amount of money.
So in this low stakes, low tension set up they manufacturer a load of stupid disagreements about things that don't really matter, in fact if you pay attention you'll probably notice that the arguments don't even make much sense. What are they actually arguing about? So that's the film, oh and it's really long, and it has a really terrible soundtrack with loads of brown sounding white boy pseudo blues. There is a pointless cameo from Iggy Pop. But that's about it. It's just a bad boring film really.
I saw a thing called Mississippi Grind not too long back which has quite a similar set-up with Ryan Reynolds staking some loser to play poker in low rent dives so they can make it to the big game. It's not without its flaws but it's a million times more gritty and dirty and fun and effective so if you do want to see gamblers and the seamy underside of their world go for that instead.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Did you ever see The Hustler? Paul Newman film, which I believe The Color of Money is supposed to be the sequel to, but I haven't seen The Color of Money.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Anyway, agree re: Tom Cruise. Don't think I've ever been particularly moved or fascinated by a performance of his, but I do think he's a prime example of a great leading man, which is largely a different skill profile than being a good actor per se.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I have seen The Hustler. In fact we were discussing this yesterday, I don't think it is a real sequel cos The Color of Money is adapted from a book (though I think pretty loosely) which I believe is nothing to do with The Hustler. However I think people have said that you could see it as set in the same world and Paul Newman's character is the same guy he played in The Hustler thirty years on or whatever.
One thing that's quite different - as I remember it - is how, in TCOM there is no real interest in the game itself, you see the nine ball flying into the pocket and the odd crazy shot plus loads of montages, but I don't think that there is even one game where you see several shots in a row with the audience being invited to follow how it goes, one shot leading to the next, the tension of whether or not he will pot the next one. I understand that nine ball doesn't really lend itself to that in a way cos it's all about players just clearing up, but the film is curiously indifferent to the whole thing. I don't really say that as a criticism, it's a sort of interesting directorial choice in a way I suppose. The Hustler I don't remember that well, and I think like sports films it doesn't focus on the game as you might expect, but I thought that there were some bits when he's playing Minnesota Fats that it did actually follow the score in games through a whole match.
One thing that's quite different - as I remember it - is how, in TCOM there is no real interest in the game itself, you see the nine ball flying into the pocket and the odd crazy shot plus loads of montages, but I don't think that there is even one game where you see several shots in a row with the audience being invited to follow how it goes, one shot leading to the next, the tension of whether or not he will pot the next one. I understand that nine ball doesn't really lend itself to that in a way cos it's all about players just clearing up, but the film is curiously indifferent to the whole thing. I don't really say that as a criticism, it's a sort of interesting directorial choice in a way I suppose. The Hustler I don't remember that well, and I think like sports films it doesn't focus on the game as you might expect, but I thought that there were some bits when he's playing Minnesota Fats that it did actually follow the score in games through a whole match.
Don't bother. The Hustler's miles better.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Big Paul Newman fan, seen 17 of his films now. But yeah, I don't particularly care about seeing The Color of Money.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Now I'm watching a film on telly called The Covenant - I guess you would call it a supernatural teen thriller or something, I can only suppose that someone saw Twilight was making money hand over fist and thought "what if we re-make The Craft except we change the name a bit and make the girls into boys?", it's really poor, looks cheap as fuck. Beyond what I said above, the main characters are these guys with magical powers who are descended from families that were persecuted during the Salem Witch Trials; at the start fo the film there are four (or is it five?) teenagers who are known as The Sons of Ipswich and they are about to come of age and receive their full powers and blah blah blah
I don't understand exactly what it is but sometimes you see films that just look really cheaply made and this one of those, I'm not talking about the CGI or any fx at all, even a normal poorly lit scene with two ham-fisted meat heads trying to remember their lines at each other in a corridor screams cheapness. And the actors are just fucking terrible in every way, they can't emote or anything like that which was always gonna be way out of their league but you'd think they could have a stab at the accents. At first they're in Ipswich and then they go to this hospital in Gloucester, now I didn't exactly expect them to nail both those accents, or even that Ipswich and Norwich would have different accents, but I thought that some of the people involved - maybe the adults such as the teachers etc - could at least have a stab at sounding English but no-one seems to have even bothered, they just sound like bog-standard moronic American teenagers. So lazy.
I don't understand exactly what it is but sometimes you see films that just look really cheaply made and this one of those, I'm not talking about the CGI or any fx at all, even a normal poorly lit scene with two ham-fisted meat heads trying to remember their lines at each other in a corridor screams cheapness. And the actors are just fucking terrible in every way, they can't emote or anything like that which was always gonna be way out of their league but you'd think they could have a stab at the accents. At first they're in Ipswich and then they go to this hospital in Gloucester, now I didn't exactly expect them to nail both those accents, or even that Ipswich and Norwich would have different accents, but I thought that some of the people involved - maybe the adults such as the teachers etc - could at least have a stab at sounding English but no-one seems to have even bothered, they just sound like bog-standard moronic American teenagers. So lazy.
Just watched it. You're wrong.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Agreed, re: the wrongness of Luka in general.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Just in case I want to point out that I was being stupid there, I do know that an Ipswich and Gloucester in the US.
luka
Well-known member
its dumb
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Dumble Indumbnity
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
And just like that, the Luka-Biscuits Axis has congealed.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Congealed is the right word.
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Hyena
drugs, cops, cops on drugs, Albanians with drugs, Albanians with prostitution rings, power trips in command structures, that cunt something Maskell who’s been in everything with a London theme blah
night shift error, you can see cap tips to Belly with the opening theft of a distribution hub/bank but it’s all cliche from there on. Decent ending tune sourced as a refund
drugs, cops, cops on drugs, Albanians with drugs, Albanians with prostitution rings, power trips in command structures, that cunt something Maskell who’s been in everything with a London theme blah
night shift error, you can see cap tips to Belly with the opening theft of a distribution hub/bank but it’s all cliche from there on. Decent ending tune sourced as a refund
rubberdingyrapids
Well-known member
i thought hyena was alright. basically wanted to be bad lieutenant but didnt quite get there. one of those british movies that ends up feeling a bit TV-ish at times.