was it really THAT good?
>>68225784
it was just OK. but if you have a fantasy where leonardo dicaprio suffers immensely, this movie has a decent amount of content you'll be very interested in.
>>68225784
it was alright.
it's just very well done
It was impressive but not much else
it's not enjoyable, or fun, or particularly meaningful or touching, or clever
but it's good.
>>68225784
It was alright
Beautiful looking movie though
>>68225784
same problem like with Birdman - overrated pile o' shit with horrbile directing (whoaaah the camera is floating around and shaking sooo artsy whoaaaa), decent plot (MUH REVENGE) and oscarbait acting (this is supposed to be leo's best role? I mean fuck off, even Django Unchained was better)
>>68226236
oh and I almost forgot the bad CGI
>>68226236
Literal meme opinion.
Fuck off.
Meh.
I'll admit I was taken aback by the grandoiseness of it all, but that was probably because it was only the second film I'd been to see in the cinema in 12 years (first one since around 2003ish was Star Wars a couple of weeks earlier)
It looked great, about as good as snow and barren woodland can look, I guess. Tom Hardy blew Leo out of the water in terms of acting. Leo did fuck all in regards to acting other than YELLING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT INTENSITY MEANS and shivering (and it was all shot in cold as fuck temperatures so that wasn't even acting)
The plot itself was meh, it's your typical survival/revenge film, they even left out half the shit that apparently happened (like him sleeping on rotting logs so the maggots would eat his rotting flesh before it got infected).
The more I look back on it the more mediocre it seems. The biggest thing it has going for it is that it was shot on location in shitty weather and what not, and Tom Hardy who wasn't in it particularly much.
90% of the film is either close ups of Leo's face, him YELLING TO DISTRACT FROM HIS LACK OF ACTING ABILITY, or scenery shots (which detract from the film when they're all snow covered, leafless forests. Atleast Malick's films which are 90% scenery shots are interesting, visually.)
It was pretty to look at, but that's it. The movie was so detached. There was literally no emotion.
>>68226274
literal meme reply with no counterarguments
JUST
>>68226374
>implying you made an argument in the first place
>>68226463
oh, so you REALLY don't have anything to say? well then, I'll asume I was right about everything I said...
>>68226463
hello Gonzalez, decent film, keep trying tho
>>68226463
There is a thing called arguing. And you type and stuff to do it... meme replying will only get you so far faggot.
>>68226502
>Iñarritú and Lubezki
>horrible direction
>revenge plots are decent
>oscarbait acting
You couldn't write a plebbier post if you tried. You have no arguments either, just buzzwords and opinions.
Birdman is a masterpiece, pretending that it's not to imply more taste than others is beyond pathetic.
Go ahead and reply saying that you were only pretending to be retarded, it shows already.
Looks amazing, some really effective action scenes, but thats really it. I had only the barest interest in Leo's character, mostly out of basic empathy for a person in a bad situation, not because he was a remotely compelling character.
It was incredibly disappointing to figure out that all this was for a simple revenge story, which I can't stand. I don't understand the huge appeal of them. They're always half power fantasy because for some reason people really want to pretend they've been wronged and can get violent retribution, then back out at the end because "revenge isn't the answer". The answer to what, you made up this scenario next to nobody in reality has ever been in only to say you shouldn't actually do it. What is anyone supposed to take away from stories like this? Do so many people really fantasize about imaginary revenge that we need movies to tell them why its wrong?
>>68226639
>Iñarritú and Lubezki
>horrible direction
of course. comparing to someone like PTA the directing is very uneven, okay it some spots, bad in others (dude clearly has a boner for longshots but they look really forced)
>revenge plots are decent
revenge and romance are storytelling 101, basic shit. do some research about how humans, males especially get easy boners for anything REVENGE or CONFLICT because of shit in our DNA. google EVOLUTIONIST THEORY OF LITERATURE for reference
>oscarbait acting
name one single scene in which leo does outstanding acting in this film. you can't by the way.
>>68226772
>PTA
okay you almost had me.
5/10 for effort
>>68226721
>I had only the barest interest in Leo's characte
>barest
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>68226772
Longshots were the best shots of the movie, lad.
>>68225784
Looked very pretty, had a good premise but nothing that interesting happened.
Watching Leo get savaged by a bear is kind of exciting but not exactly sophisticated. It might as well just be guns and explosions.
Couldn't understand a fucking word Tom Hardy mumbled either
>>68226826
oh, so that "pretending to be retarded" was you actually referring to yourself? now I get it, good bait!
It's like washing a sink of dishes, the movie.
>>68226893
If you're even comparing PTA to Iñarritú+Lubezki then you're just namedropping.
They're not even close.
>>68226946
they're directors, they do movies. it's only fair to compair them. it's not like one of them makes documentaries and the other draws anime.
>>68226992
>they're directors
With visibly distinct style.
>Iñarritú isn't good because there are other directors
Literally retarded: the post: the lifestyle.
>>68227080
>Iñarritú isn't good because there are other directors
except I never said that. it's fair to say that one director does his job better than the other, that one is more effective than the other. you can't be 100% objective about this so it's always at least half personal opinion, no need to get mad and defensive. we don't have to like the same shit.
op here, in my humble opinion i came to this conclusion:
cinematography:10
soundtrack:8
direction:10
acting:10
story:5
>>68225875
Damn. suddenly regretting missing out on this movie when it was in theatres
>>68226236
>whoaaah the camera is floating around and shaking sooo artsy whoaaaa
This worked for Birdman. Gave the movie the feeling of a play since there were no cuts. It drew you into the movie.
