Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Everyone has their own criteria for what makes a "perfect move."
Atomika said previously hers was completion of the narrative arc. I think that's a fair standard.
I believe you weight what a movie is trying to accomplish against itself. Is there any point where the film detracts from itself? Is there ever an odd or misplaced tonal shift? If it ever fails in what it is trying to accomplish then it is not a perfect movie.
This is why I have trouble justifying The Godfather on that list. It's a brilliant movie, and beautiful, with fantastic performances throughout. But there's a sharp break between the second and third acts where the main character undergoes a drastic personality shift and gains much acclaim in his community, and all of it happens off screen. Sure, it's easy to make up reasons as to how this happens, but the Michael of Act 1 and Act 2 is not the Michael of Act 3.
Pretty much my big issue with the film. It's a brilliant first half as it slowly moves Michael into place and then the whole movie just shifts hard and never recovers.
Watching both Part I and Part II last year, I feel like there's one good movie between the two. First has a great beginning and the second has a great ending.
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Edge of Tomorrow, duh!
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Edge of Tomorrow, duh!
Was Edge of Tomorrow set on February 2nd? I don't remember.
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Edge of Tomorrow, duh!
Was Edge of Tomorrow set on February 2nd? I don't remember.
I don't think so. It was more just a joke that it was sci-fi ground hogs day.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Everyone has their own criteria for what makes a "perfect move."
Atomika said previously hers was completion of the narrative arc. I think that's a fair standard.
I believe you weight what a movie is trying to accomplish against itself. Is there any point where the film detracts from itself? Is there ever an odd or misplaced tonal shift? If it ever fails in what it is trying to accomplish then it is not a perfect movie.
This is why I have trouble justifying The Godfather on that list. It's a brilliant movie, and beautiful, with fantastic performances throughout. But there's a sharp break between the second and third acts where the main character undergoes a drastic personality shift and gains much acclaim in his community, and all of it happens off screen. Sure, it's easy to make up reasons as to how this happens, but the Michael of Act 1 and Act 2 is not the Michael of Act 3.
Pretty much my big issue with the film. It's a brilliant first half as it slowly moves Michael into place and then the whole movie just shifts hard and never recovers.
Watching both Part I and Part II last year, I feel like there's one good movie between the two. First has a great beginning and the second has a great ending.
Yeah, and you don't hear a lot of criticism, period, about Godfather II, but the first half or more of that film is slow slow slow, with a winding and labyrinthine plot about politics and upheaval in Cuba and lots of sluggishness. Everything about Young Vito is aces, and just about everything with Michael back in the US is good stuff, but god there's a bunch of tar in that film.
Yeah, Groundhog's Day is a great choice for a perfect comedy.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
Edge of Tomorrow, duh!
Was Edge of Tomorrow set on February 2nd? I don't remember.
I don't think so. It was more just a joke that it was sci-fi ground hogs day.
My favorite Groundhog Day style thing was probably Day Break with Taye Diggs.
(Mrs. Doubtfire is one of those rare movies where there is no antagonist and actually pulls it off, on top of having no lull in the story)
I dunno, I rather prefer it when my comedies contain lulz.
Also, I had no idea Richard Pryor was a co-writer for Blazing Saddles.
He was supposed to be Sheriff Bart, but Warner Bros higher-ups nixed the idea.
I swear that in an interview somewhere Brooks said that Pryor actually recommended Cleavon Little for Bart because "you want someone dark for this role."
Everyone has their own criteria for what makes a "perfect move."
Atomika said previously hers was completion of the narrative arc. I think that's a fair standard.
I believe you weight what a movie is trying to accomplish against itself. Is there any point where the film detracts from itself? Is there ever an odd or misplaced tonal shift? If it ever fails in what it is trying to accomplish then it is not a perfect movie.
This is why I have trouble justifying The Godfather on that list. It's a brilliant movie, and beautiful, with fantastic performances throughout. But there's a sharp break between the second and third acts where the main character undergoes a drastic personality shift and gains much acclaim in his community, and all of it happens off screen. Sure, it's easy to make up reasons as to how this happens, but the Michael of Act 1 and Act 2 is not the Michael of Act 3.
Pretty much my big issue with the film. It's a brilliant first half as it slowly moves Michael into place and then the whole movie just shifts hard and never recovers.
Watching both Part I and Part II last year, I feel like there's one good movie between the two. First has a great beginning and the second has a great ending.
Yeah, and you don't hear a lot of criticism, period, about Godfather II, but the first half or more of that film is slow slow slow, with a winding and labyrinthine plot about politics and upheaval in Cuba and lots of sluggishness. Everything about Young Vito is aces, and just about everything with Michael back in the US is good stuff, but god there's a bunch of tar in that film.
Given the reputation of the film, I was hoping for better then the first one but goddamn, most of Godfather II was pointless.
Found the flashback sequences underwhelming for the most part too. They seemed to have all the same problems that I had with the ending of Godfather I.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
If only he was willing to put a good movie in the sequel instead...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
With Prometheus I expect another movie that thinks it's smarter than it really is that's pretty to look at.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
With Prometheus I expect another movie that thinks it's smarter than it really is that's pretty to look at.
So basically you expect the movie to be Jessica Chobot of movies?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
I'd have been happier if he hadn't felt the need to stupidly jam it into the first one.
+1
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I just found out that The Princess Bride was released on September 25th, 1987. That's 27 years ago yesterday.
Interstellar is going to be 2 hours and 49 minutes long, that means with previews and the twenty you'll be at the theater over 3 hours. Or half the length of a baseball game.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
With Prometheus I expect another movie that thinks it's smarter than it really is that's pretty to look at.
So basically you expect the movie to be Jessica Chobot of movies?
I won't have you dishonoring Jessica Chobot, you knave!
Interstellar is going to be 2 hours and 49 minutes long, that means with previews and the twenty you'll be at the theater over 3 hours. Or half the length of a baseball game.
So 10 minutes shorter then Wolf of Wall Street and only 15 longer then The Dark Knight.
Calling something perfect from a critical standpoint and perfect for me can give two very different kinds of lists. On a perfect for me list i'd have stuff like Prometheus and 28 days later, even though i know the shortfalls they have from a critical standpoint.
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
With Prometheus I expect another movie that thinks it's smarter than it really is that's pretty to look at.
So basically you expect the movie to be Jessica Chobot of movies?
I won't have you dishonoring Jessica Chobot, you knave!
I'm sorry I can't hear you over these strategically placed video game controllers blocking my naughty bits.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@Atomika Which shift in The Godfather are you talking about?
Re: Law Abiding Citizen, that movie is ridiculous dumb fun. But the real problem with the ending isn't the reveal, it's the end of Jamie Foxx's character arc. The set-up for his story is "Because Foxx was a lazy prosecutor, some of the killers went free, leading to Butler's need for vengeance"; but the end of his story is the standard "Father who works too hard realizes he needs to spend more time with his kids, so he skips a work thing to show up to his daughter's recital just in time to nod approvingly at her solo." But this is entirely the opposite lesson he should have learned! The end of the movie should have been him skipping the recital (little girl cries on stage when she sees her Daddy's seat is empty) to go work harder (Foxx hunched over stacks of paperwork in his office) so that his corner of the justice system no longer has a loophole ("We'll get them," Foxx promises the next surviving husband, and this time he means it).
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Re: Law Abiding Citizen, that movie is ridiculous dumb fun. But the real problem with the ending isn't the reveal, it's the end of Jamie Foxx's character arc. The set-up for his story is "Because Foxx was a lazy prosecutor, some of the killers went free, leading to Butler's need for vengeance"; but the end of his story is the standard "Father who works too hard realizes he needs to spend more time with his kids, so he skips a work thing to show up to his daughter's recital just in time to nod approvingly at her solo." But this is entirely the opposite lesson he should have learned! The end of the movie should have been him skipping the recital (little girl cries on stage when she sees her Daddy's seat is empty) to go work harder (Foxx hunched over stacks of paperwork in his office) so that his corner of the justice system no longer has a loophole ("We'll get them," Foxx promises the next surviving husband, and this time he means it).
People really need to stop acting like not going to recitals or plays or sporting events are shattering, life altering things in a child's life. If they are, you have done a terrible job raising your kid.
What I hated about Foxx's character arc was that
he breaks the law in the end, in what the movie tries to make a "fuck yeah" moment, but that is what should have happened earlier and none of this would have gone this far. Or rather, if it did, Butler would be more of a bad guy/antagonist than he ultimately is shown as. In the end he breaks the law to beat Butler (and burn him alive) and that should have gnawed away at him both in his family and professional life to show that Butler may be dead but will ultimately win in the end with Foxx finally suffering.
The film would have been stronger had Foxx actually been ok with Butler Dextering the bad guys and trying to let him get away with the murders (instead of an off the cuff half approval/half salesman tactic to gain trust), and then Butler's all consuming grief grows from that.
Because really, there's a big difference in letting a grieving dude kill the people responsible for ruining his life instead of trying to prosecute him (also notice how the prosecution thing comes and goes as needed, when it should have been much, much more important to the story as a whole?), and just breaking into a property the guy owns to figure out how he's killing all these people.
Still going for the perfectest movies of ever in here? Event Horizon.
Eff all ya'll, it's got horror and it's got scifi and a cool cast. Really well done ol' gem, I don't need much more.
Die Hard will always be the perfect movie for me. Everything from casual racism, to European people are generally interchangeable for whatever country you want them to be from, its got everything you want in a late 80's action movie.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
@Atomika Which shift in The Godfather are you talking about?
Between Michael losing Apollonia in Sicily and Michael introducing himself as "the Godfather" to Kate a year later.
Isn't that kind of the point? The beginning of the movie is Michael in a certain place in regard to his father's business and etc. and etc., but at the end of the movie, which side of the door are we on and who are we with? In order for that perspective shift to happen, we need to get some distance from Michael, and one technique for doing that is to demonstrate a character change whose indirect causes are known but whose direct antecedents we are not privy to. It is a subtler version of the moment in Taxi Driver when, after spending most of the movie directly inside Travis's head, we suddenly realize that when we weren't looking he drastically changed his haircut. That sudden distance is meant to be disturbing.
The difference is write there in the description you wrote. The shift you described isn't "Michael is one way, then Michael is another way," it's "Michael experienced something and then later he seems different to Kay." Kay is not the protagonist of the movie, but she is the audience surrogate when the movie needs one (for example, during the wedding, Kay is the recipient of the exposition Michael gives her about the nature and history of the family and the tradition of the one favor from the Don on the day of his daughter's wedding). She's absent for a large portion of the film, but returns when the movie makes the transition from showing you an emotional journey you can relate to (Michael's relationship with his family) to showing you a situation you can be critical of (Michael embracing criminality).
That transition is, as far as I know, fairly unique to the genre. Gangster films usually have an alluring rise (scrappy, underdog protagonists using cleverness to get one up on their competitors and then celebrating with booze, drugs, women, parties) followed by a finger-wagging fall ("this is what you get because crime doesn't pay" as they go out in a hail of bullets or shuffle off to jail). The Godfather gives us a fall (the family undergoes attack, loss, and failure), allowing us to sympathize with the familial emotions ("I'm with you, pop," whispers Michael, and even if we know where this is going to end up, we understand and we'd have said the same thing) and feel close to this close-knit group of family and friends. Then it gives us a rise (Michael's return, changed and hardened and carefully preparing a masterstroke) while forcing us to distance ourselves from these people (not only Michael's character shift, but the Don's loss of power and authority culminating in death, the idea of treachery within the ranks, etc) so that, by the end, we understand what led Michael and his ilk to become criminals, but we (hopefully) are no longer on their side.
This is why the film culminates in a montage intercutting Michael at the baptism with the murders Michael has ordered in order to secure his family's position. Often this montage is simply taken as "cool," either because it's technically well-executed (which it is) or because people like the notion of Michael becoming the Godfather in two ways at the same time. But what is less commented on is that the point of the sequence isn't badassery, it's hypocrisy. Coppola, who knows from sin (just watch The Conversation, a movie drenched in moral paranoia), draws our attention to the fact that Michael is making a pledge ("Do you renounce Satan?" "I do renounce him") and breaking it at the same time. Michael is becoming one form of Godfather--a murdering criminal patriarch--but his lies mean he is not the other kind of godfather at all. The Michael of this scene and of the last one, with Kay, is someone who has learned the value of pretending to be one thing while actually being another, and more than any other action in the film, it is his lie (to Kay, his new family, about the terrible things he has done to and for his old family) that damns him. The film is pointed toward that moment from the very beginning, but the character shift you're complaining about is a necessary turning as the movie approaches its final destination.
Oh and Event Horizon is a masterpiece. Judeo/Christian baddies out to get our protagonist? Yawn. A spaceship with sciency themes and menacing interiors out to get our protagonists? Tell me more. A damned shame about what happened to the extra footage/scenes.
Interstellar is going to be 2 hours and 49 minutes long, that means with previews and the twenty you'll be at the theater over 3 hours. Or half the length of a baseball game.
but really with the time dilation it won't be so long from the perspective of the viewer
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Equalizer, is not paying Denzel by the line but the very bloody horrific murder. Like at points if Denzel wasn't the hero he'd be a serial killer. I enjoyed it, slow burn to start, bloody bloody finish.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Equalizer, is not paying Denzel by the line but the very bloody horrific murder. Like at points if Denzel wasn't the hero he'd be a serial killer. I enjoyed it, slow burn to start, bloody bloody finish.
What if the movie is in his head and he's actually a deluded serial killer. Never saw that coming, didja?
Posts
That's just insulting to everyone whose actually being serious here.
I went on a date with a girl who had never heard of it. Clearly it was not going to work out.
It's interesting, but there are so many Holidays throughout the year, and I can imagine new movies coming out themed on any one of them. Christmas, Valentine's Day, President's Day, New Years, any holiday, but I cannot imagine any movie will ever be made that prominently features Groundhog's Day again. That movie is inextricably linked to the holiday now in pop culture. There will be a thousand movies for any holiday from Arbor Day to Thanksgiving, but there will never be another movie set on Groundhog's Day.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Pretty much my big issue with the film. It's a brilliant first half as it slowly moves Michael into place and then the whole movie just shifts hard and never recovers.
Watching both Part I and Part II last year, I feel like there's one good movie between the two. First has a great beginning and the second has a great ending.
You could introduce the movie to her.
Edge of Tomorrow, duh!
Was Edge of Tomorrow set on February 2nd? I don't remember.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think so. It was more just a joke that it was sci-fi ground hogs day.
Yeah, and you don't hear a lot of criticism, period, about Godfather II, but the first half or more of that film is slow slow slow, with a winding and labyrinthine plot about politics and upheaval in Cuba and lots of sluggishness. Everything about Young Vito is aces, and just about everything with Michael back in the US is good stuff, but god there's a bunch of tar in that film.
My favorite Groundhog Day style thing was probably Day Break with Taye Diggs.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That was the manga.
I swear that in an interview somewhere Brooks said that Pryor actually recommended Cleavon Little for Bart because "you want someone dark for this role."
Given the reputation of the film, I was hoping for better then the first one but goddamn, most of Godfather II was pointless.
Found the flashback sequences underwhelming for the most part too. They seemed to have all the same problems that I had with the ending of Godfather I.
That's why I put in the designator! Haha, but I get enough of what I want from it to say that. But it could have been an actual great movie. Too bad.
Am happy to hear that Ridley recently said he is no longer worried about trying to fit the Alien xenos into the sequel.
If only he was willing to put a good movie in the sequel instead...
pleasepaypreacher.net
With Prometheus I expect another movie that thinks it's smarter than it really is that's pretty to look at.
So basically you expect the movie to be Jessica Chobot of movies?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'd have been happier if he hadn't felt the need to stupidly jam it into the first one.
Interstellar is going to be 2 hours and 49 minutes long, that means with previews and the twenty you'll be at the theater over 3 hours. Or half the length of a baseball game.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I won't have you dishonoring Jessica Chobot, you knave!
So 10 minutes shorter then Wolf of Wall Street and only 15 longer then The Dark Knight.
I'm sorry I can't hear you over these strategically placed video game controllers blocking my naughty bits.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Re: Law Abiding Citizen, that movie is ridiculous dumb fun. But the real problem with the ending isn't the reveal, it's the end of Jamie Foxx's character arc. The set-up for his story is "Because Foxx was a lazy prosecutor, some of the killers went free, leading to Butler's need for vengeance"; but the end of his story is the standard "Father who works too hard realizes he needs to spend more time with his kids, so he skips a work thing to show up to his daughter's recital just in time to nod approvingly at her solo." But this is entirely the opposite lesson he should have learned! The end of the movie should have been him skipping the recital (little girl cries on stage when she sees her Daddy's seat is empty) to go work harder (Foxx hunched over stacks of paperwork in his office) so that his corner of the justice system no longer has a loophole ("We'll get them," Foxx promises the next surviving husband, and this time he means it).
Between Michael losing Apollonia in Sicily and Michael introducing himself as "the Godfather" to Kate a year later.
People really need to stop acting like not going to recitals or plays or sporting events are shattering, life altering things in a child's life. If they are, you have done a terrible job raising your kid.
What I hated about Foxx's character arc was that
The film would have been stronger had Foxx actually been ok with Butler Dextering the bad guys and trying to let him get away with the murders (instead of an off the cuff half approval/half salesman tactic to gain trust), and then Butler's all consuming grief grows from that.
Because really, there's a big difference in letting a grieving dude kill the people responsible for ruining his life instead of trying to prosecute him (also notice how the prosecution thing comes and goes as needed, when it should have been much, much more important to the story as a whole?), and just breaking into a property the guy owns to figure out how he's killing all these people.
Eff all ya'll, it's got horror and it's got scifi and a cool cast. Really well done ol' gem, I don't need much more.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Isn't that kind of the point? The beginning of the movie is Michael in a certain place in regard to his father's business and etc. and etc., but at the end of the movie, which side of the door are we on and who are we with? In order for that perspective shift to happen, we need to get some distance from Michael, and one technique for doing that is to demonstrate a character change whose indirect causes are known but whose direct antecedents we are not privy to. It is a subtler version of the moment in Taxi Driver when, after spending most of the movie directly inside Travis's head, we suddenly realize that when we weren't looking he drastically changed his haircut. That sudden distance is meant to be disturbing.
The difference is write there in the description you wrote. The shift you described isn't "Michael is one way, then Michael is another way," it's "Michael experienced something and then later he seems different to Kay." Kay is not the protagonist of the movie, but she is the audience surrogate when the movie needs one (for example, during the wedding, Kay is the recipient of the exposition Michael gives her about the nature and history of the family and the tradition of the one favor from the Don on the day of his daughter's wedding). She's absent for a large portion of the film, but returns when the movie makes the transition from showing you an emotional journey you can relate to (Michael's relationship with his family) to showing you a situation you can be critical of (Michael embracing criminality).
That transition is, as far as I know, fairly unique to the genre. Gangster films usually have an alluring rise (scrappy, underdog protagonists using cleverness to get one up on their competitors and then celebrating with booze, drugs, women, parties) followed by a finger-wagging fall ("this is what you get because crime doesn't pay" as they go out in a hail of bullets or shuffle off to jail). The Godfather gives us a fall (the family undergoes attack, loss, and failure), allowing us to sympathize with the familial emotions ("I'm with you, pop," whispers Michael, and even if we know where this is going to end up, we understand and we'd have said the same thing) and feel close to this close-knit group of family and friends. Then it gives us a rise (Michael's return, changed and hardened and carefully preparing a masterstroke) while forcing us to distance ourselves from these people (not only Michael's character shift, but the Don's loss of power and authority culminating in death, the idea of treachery within the ranks, etc) so that, by the end, we understand what led Michael and his ilk to become criminals, but we (hopefully) are no longer on their side.
This is why the film culminates in a montage intercutting Michael at the baptism with the murders Michael has ordered in order to secure his family's position. Often this montage is simply taken as "cool," either because it's technically well-executed (which it is) or because people like the notion of Michael becoming the Godfather in two ways at the same time. But what is less commented on is that the point of the sequence isn't badassery, it's hypocrisy. Coppola, who knows from sin (just watch The Conversation, a movie drenched in moral paranoia), draws our attention to the fact that Michael is making a pledge ("Do you renounce Satan?" "I do renounce him") and breaking it at the same time. Michael is becoming one form of Godfather--a murdering criminal patriarch--but his lies mean he is not the other kind of godfather at all. The Michael of this scene and of the last one, with Kay, is someone who has learned the value of pretending to be one thing while actually being another, and more than any other action in the film, it is his lie (to Kay, his new family, about the terrible things he has done to and for his old family) that damns him. The film is pointed toward that moment from the very beginning, but the character shift you're complaining about is a necessary turning as the movie approaches its final destination.
What. 7/10
Oh and Event Horizon is a masterpiece. Judeo/Christian baddies out to get our protagonist? Yawn. A spaceship with sciency themes and menacing interiors out to get our protagonists? Tell me more. A damned shame about what happened to the extra footage/scenes.
Book first, then manga, then film.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
but really with the time dilation it won't be so long from the perspective of the viewer
It's the only movie I can think of which to me is entirely singular. It has no scenes where I go, "Oh, yeah, that's a lot like ____"
And Peter O'Toole is amazing
Citizen Kane and The Boondock Saints.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What if the movie is in his head and he's actually a deluded serial killer. Never saw that coming, didja?