Considering he has an acting credit in over 100 films its not a great record. And i think in a lot of cases its more a case that he was in a good film rather than being particularly good in it. Theres a few exceptions alright.
I'd say this is definitely the case with his most famous films, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, The Sixth Sense, and even Looper were great movies despite Bruce Willis, not because of him.
I'd say this is definitely the case with his most famous films, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, The Sixth Sense, and even Looper were great movies despite Bruce Willis, not because of him.
Pulp Fiction I agree, but the rest I think Bruce made them great films, Armageddon to a point also, could you really see anybody else playing Harry Stamper.
I'd say this is definitely the case with his most famous films, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys, The Sixth Sense, and even Looper were great movies despite Bruce Willis, not because of him.
Pulp Fiction I agree, but the rest I think Bruce made them great films, Armageddon to a point also, could you really see anybody else playing Harry Stamper.
Pulp Fiction I agree, but the rest I think Bruce made them great films, Armageddon to a point also, could you really see anybody else playing Harry Stamper.
Pulp Fiction I agree, but the rest I think Bruce made them great films, Armageddon to a point also, could you really see anybody else playing Harry Stamper.
Pretty apt for the current situation.
Army doctors struggle to find a cure for a deadly virus spreading throughout a California town that was brought to America by an African monkey.
Very good cast, who were on the whole very good.
The helicopter stuff was stupid.
Sutherland was an arse, Dustin Hoffman is stupendous as always, Rene Russo plays Robbie with realism, Kevin Spacey makes for a good humor man, Cuba Gooding Jr. pulls off the green man trying to earn respect, and being a bad-ass at the same time. As always, Morgan Freeman is wonderful.
It has its faults but overall a very good watch.
I worked out a few months back that Bruce Willis’ last 8 films had a combined score of 45% on rotten tomatoes…he’s been giving zero effort for about 10 years now.
I worked out a few months back that Bruce Willis’ last 8 films had a combined score of 45% on rotten tomatoes…he’s been giving zero effort for about 10 years now.
Megan Fox’s movie where she’s a bad-ass army person battling a pride of lions is worth a watch if you like ‘natural horror’ movies. Which I do, tbf. Unfortunately she wears very heavy makeup throughout which is kinda distracting, but aside from that she’s not awful in it.
A mother's reality erodes around her as she struggles to fathom the entangled web of her daughter's separation anxiety brought on by parasitic creatures within a stuffed bear.
It was not terrible, I have watched worse, the little girl was creepy as hell, well they all were actually.
Had some pretty gross parts
Like so many films like this, it had the bones of a decent film, just a bad script.
The meaning of life explored through multiple interconnected lives set in the near future.
If you like Black Mirror, you might well enjoy this, I found it OK.
It has some genuinely strange & disturbing parts.
As a Matrix fan I'm really happy they made another Matrix movie. A direct sequel that is, with Neo and Trinity.
They expanded the Matrix universe quite a bit, but you'll find they rehashed alot of the previous movies. For the fifth movie the makers should be a bit bolder and adventurous.
Oh, and alot of people will probably hate the woke-moment of Trinity flying at the end of the movie and, frankly, I wasn't that surprised as the movie was directed by Lana Wachowski, but I actually think it it makes sense as Neo and Trinity are "one": they are one and the same now, one entity.
Matrix Resurrections I wanted to like it. I really did. But it is incoherent and utterly pointless. Even the action is terrible. If somehow another film gets made I won't be watching. 2/10
My son's review was "I'd rather repeatedly punch myself in the balls for 10 minutes because at least it would be over faster". And he loved the original and even quite liked the third film.
Plenty of decent performances but some of the quick cuts were distracting, maybe what they were going for. I just found myself being frustrated by everyone, which I suppose is the point!
Before there was Up, there was this movie. A group of lovable misfit miniature alien robots saves the entire world some nice building tenants. Unabashed Spielberg-produced heart-on-sleeve 80s feel-good escapism.
EDIT: also, before there was Ana whats-her-face, there was prime Elizabeth Pena.
As a Matrix fan I'm really happy they made another Matrix movie. A direct sequel that is, with Neo and Trinity.
They expanded the Matrix universe quite a bit, but you'll find they rehashed alot of the previous movies. For the fifth movie the makers should be a bit bolder and adventurous.
Oh, and alot of people will probably hate the woke-moment of Trinity flying at the end of the movie and, frankly, I wasn't that surprised as the movie was directed by Lana Wachowski, but I actually think it it makes sense as Neo and Trinity are "one": they are one and the same now, one entity.
A Castle for Christmas. Pulp of the lesser kind. A Christmas romcom obviously, one in which a bestelling author has a PR crisis, goes to Scotland on vacation to escape it, falls in love with a castle and the people in its nextdoor village, and eventually also (duh) with the castle's duke.
Not much makes sense in this film; even the plot has weird glitches. (The breakup before the final get-together is poorly motivated, for example.) But especially the dialogues are messy, and there a lot.of awkward moments - lots of little glances and smiles that don't fit the preceding scene or current stage of the plot. Also, even I could hear some actors slippibg in and out of their Scottish accents.
Some decent laughs I guess, and its overall tone had the warmth you'd expect (we did watch this on Christmas Day!) - but I would not recommend this.
Seems like it's slim pickings for Christmas movies this year!
Good Time. The Safdie Brothers film that preceded Uncut Gems. The story is a little complicated to explain, but basically it's a serious of difficulties and misadventures for a small criminal on a day and night in New York.
I didn't like Uncut Gems - too messy, too unpleasant, too uninteresting. I kinda liked this one though. It's again a story about an unpleasant character doing unpleasant stuff, which put me off things for a while. but the film is shorter than Uncut Gems and the story is more gripping and carries you through the film, with all the random mishaps that happen. I felt the film had good pace and kept surprising me with its events, and this time the music really worked as well. (It's another electronic soundtrack, which to me really clashed with the film in Uncut Gems, but really fits and adds here - @Sweet Square.) Good acting performances, and the messy camera work adds to the character of the movie. Amazingly, it even ends kinda well (within what's possible for this film, anyway).
I had never even heard of it, but I see Good Time is also on Netflix. I'll let you know what I thought in a year or so when I've gotten round to watching it.
Did you see the 1974 and 2017 versions of Murder on the Orient Express btw? Any thoughts?
Good Time. The Safdie Brothers film that preceded Uncut Gems. The story is a little complicated to explain, but basically it's a serious of difficulties and misadventures for a small criminal on a day and night in New York.
I didn't like Uncut Gems - too messy, too unpleasant, too uninteresting. I kinda liked this one though. It's again a story about an unpleasant character doing unpleasant stuff, which put me off things for a while. but the film is shorter than Uncut Gems and the story is more gripping and carries you through the film, with all the random mishaps that happen. I felt the film had good pace and kept surprising me with its events, and this time the music really worked as well. (It's another electronic soundtrack, which to me really clashed with the film in Uncut Gems, but really fits and adds here - @Sweet Square.) Good acting performances, and the messy camera work adds to the character of the movie. Amazingly, it even ends kinda well (within what's possible for this film, anyway).
So - what did you think?
(I'm actually expecting you to tell me now that you haven't seen the 2017 version. )
Uncut Gems. I know it's supposed to be brilliant, all the critics loved it, most people on here as well, but I'm with @Wibble I'm afraid:
OK, I did actually finish the film, and I can see why people think it's well made: it's a complex story with a ton of characters that's carried successfully all the way to its end, without getting too confusing, and while maintaining its general tone and frantic pace throughout - there aren't really any bits where it falls flat. Many scenes are also a loud mess that somehow make sense anyway. So yes, I can see the skill in that - but it's really hard to appreciate a film if it's a parade of irritating characters and a story I can't care about.
To add to my complaining: also didn't really see what was so good about Sandler in here. It's not that he is bad, but it's just a more dramatic and serious (and more shouty!) version of his usual roles; it's not like there is a lot of depth, emotion, or development in his character. I mean, the character is a relentless optimist, everything he does is lies, he is exactly the same at the end as he was at the start! Further, I read in a couple of places that this was a dark comedy (at least in places), but I couldn't really see much humor at all. Finally, while I loved the sound of the soundtrack (@Sweet Square), I have no idea what it's doing here. I can go with all kinds of soundtracks, but I felt this one didn't fit this particular film. (Also: Gigi D'Agostino over the end titles? Really? Aarrgh!)
So no, not for me. Sorry.
I saw some were shocked at the ending, but doesn't it make sense that Howard does not make it through? He is an idiot and an a-hole, who locks up the people that have been threatening them throughout at what should have their moment of reconciliation. Yes, he manages to make things even better through that final, insane bet - but there was no way they would just get out and take the money - not even if it were all the money, much more than they were owed. It's quite brutal how Howard is suddenly shot, of course, but he was always going to meet a tragic end. He had to.
Jeepers what a crazy film. I remember thinking I was glad I watched it but I got so distracted by the constant chatter in it - it is different enough to watch at least once though it's quite different to anything else I've seen.
Horrible is an over-exaggeration, but it was too long and lost its way at times. The new cut (Final cut or something) keeps it tighter but expands on certain things that were a little superficial in the initial cut. It was a lovely experience seeing it at the cinema last summer too.
I hated Redux both times I watched it but The Final Cut was brilliant. Watched it yesterday and the reduced running time combined with a few extra scenes retained really worked. A masterpiece and even more gorgeous now it has been digitally remastered.
It's a very specific flavor of film not to everyone's taste, for sure. Someone has to be in the mood for a film where the main character makes a series of bad decisions that loop back on him and plunge him deeper and deeper into trouble. They also have to like loose films with an almost verité quality to them, as in, you never once feel like you are watching something filmed on a set. From a filmmaking perspective, some of the things they did in Uncut Gems was jaw-dropping. They crammed so many extras into scenes that it really felt they took Sandler and randomly had him go through certain areas while in character, it felt so natural. The Safdie style is very much like Cassavettes, and that also is an acquired taste. For people who like cutty films with a lot of camera angles and a lot of quick edits that heighten the viewer's awareness (closeups, whip pans, overheads, etc.) or any shots that really scream out "look at my camera technique", they are not going to like Safdie films at all. I work in film, so seeing movies where the seams are hidden and feeling rhythms that aren't predictable really score high with me. Uncut Gems more so than Good Time. I felt a lot of times in Good Time that Pattinson was "acting", and it didn't have the seamless quality of Uncut.
Also, I have never been a fan of Adam Sandler and I had openly laughed when people suggested he could act. Then I saw Uncut Gems, and I humbly beg forgiveness. Sandler was brilliant and he was 100% totally robbed of the Oscar that year.