Big call
And I think it has got to the stage where his mere presence is too big an irritation for me.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Big call
And I think it has got to the stage where his mere presence is too big an irritation for me.
He has filming just down the road from us recently.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/enterta...-yallingup-beach-in-was-south-west-c-12285618
Sounds quality
https://www.perthnow.com.au/enterta...-yallingup-beach-in-was-south-west-c-12285618
Sounds quality
Live, Laugh, Love etsy moms are about to get their own version of Heat.
It’s going to be incredible.
It’s going to be incredible.
Last edited:
Fat Joe as a therapist, I’m here for it.
Yeah it was a good film and Cage was excellent in it.
This is right, I could not recommend them, but I do like shitty horror films and yeah once in a while I ifnd a hidden gem, sadly neither of these were that hidden gem.
Days
How to solve neck pain…..get jacked off by a nipple licking twink.
Ming-liang Tsai takes slow cinema to the extremes. It opens with - “This film doesn't have subtitles intentionally” and had almost no talking for the 2 hour run time. Mostly made up with 3 - 5 minutes still shots. For whatever reason these types of slow cinema films feel like the future. Something that is fundamentally different to the movies of the past.
Anyways if anyone is going to watch this then take some drugs and pick ambient music to act as a home made soundtrack.
9/10
How to solve neck pain…..get jacked off by a nipple licking twink.
Ming-liang Tsai takes slow cinema to the extremes. It opens with - “This film doesn't have subtitles intentionally” and had almost no talking for the 2 hour run time. Mostly made up with 3 - 5 minutes still shots. For whatever reason these types of slow cinema films feel like the future. Something that is fundamentally different to the movies of the past.
Anyways if anyone is going to watch this then take some drugs and pick ambient music to act as a home made soundtrack.
9/10
Last edited:
One life
Superb movie. Very moving. 9/10.
Superb movie. Very moving. 9/10.
Most trailers arent cringe enough to make me not want it at all but that one def is. It probably doesn't help I have heard too many stories about people I know who worked with JLo and them not being flattering at all.
Unbroken (2014)
Directed by Angelina Jolie, with Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson.
This brings up the discussion about truth and accuracy when doing movies based on real events and real people. This is the true story of an Italian American kid who became a track star, then ended up as a bombardier on a B-24 in WWII. The plane crashes in the ocean, leaving only 3 people alive, who, after about 47 days at sea are picked up by a Japanese ship and put in a POW camp. There, he endures repeated brutality. At the end of two hours,
and his camp is liberated. He is reunited with his family, the end.
I remember when this came out, and the critical consensus was dead on. This movie is really well-directed. Jolie is a very assured, calm, competent filmmaker. There's nothing flashy or showy or overly exciting about any of it, though. The problem with Unbroken is that the story itself is weak. Yes, it's a true story, but when those beats don't add up to a compelling narrative, you have to get creative.
The first 30-45 minutes they intercut between his bombing runs as a bombardier and his running track exploits. Then they abandon this motif. From there it's a lot of starvation and slave labor. The problem is there are few if any moments that pull against the downward trajectory of the story. It's depressing and brutal. A parallel example would be The Shawshank Redemption, when Tim Robbins breaks into the warden's office and plays a record for the prisoners -- that moment of defiance, and simple joy, is missing from Unbroken.
Also unlike Shawshank, Unbroken does not stick the landing. We are meant to believe there is a quasi-mystical side to this, that the real character makes a deal with God to dedicate his life to him if he gets him through this, and then we see in text cards at the end that "he fulfilled his promise". The text at the end also tells us that the main guy decided that "forgiveness is more important than revenge" or something. The problem with both is that they are literally making you read it, instead of showing it happen.
Ultimately, the running and being an Olympic athlete are beside any point the film is trying to make. In short, it's missing heart. Yes, it is admirable showing the guy's bravery and stoicism, but it's a pummeling tale of life in a Japanese POW camp. At the end, he survives, barely. It's like, as a pitch, someone says: "there's this immigrant Italian kid who made the Olympic team, competed in Hitler's Olympics, was in a B-24 crew in WWII, got shot down, survived being adrift for 47 days, was sent to a POW camp for two plus years, and came home." Then someone in the room should have said, "Yes, and?"
Unbroken is well made but emotionally muted.
6/10
Directed by Angelina Jolie, with Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson.
This brings up the discussion about truth and accuracy when doing movies based on real events and real people. This is the true story of an Italian American kid who became a track star, then ended up as a bombardier on a B-24 in WWII. The plane crashes in the ocean, leaving only 3 people alive, who, after about 47 days at sea are picked up by a Japanese ship and put in a POW camp. There, he endures repeated brutality. At the end of two hours,
the Allies win
I remember when this came out, and the critical consensus was dead on. This movie is really well-directed. Jolie is a very assured, calm, competent filmmaker. There's nothing flashy or showy or overly exciting about any of it, though. The problem with Unbroken is that the story itself is weak. Yes, it's a true story, but when those beats don't add up to a compelling narrative, you have to get creative.
The first 30-45 minutes they intercut between his bombing runs as a bombardier and his running track exploits. Then they abandon this motif. From there it's a lot of starvation and slave labor. The problem is there are few if any moments that pull against the downward trajectory of the story. It's depressing and brutal. A parallel example would be The Shawshank Redemption, when Tim Robbins breaks into the warden's office and plays a record for the prisoners -- that moment of defiance, and simple joy, is missing from Unbroken.
Also unlike Shawshank, Unbroken does not stick the landing. We are meant to believe there is a quasi-mystical side to this, that the real character makes a deal with God to dedicate his life to him if he gets him through this, and then we see in text cards at the end that "he fulfilled his promise". The text at the end also tells us that the main guy decided that "forgiveness is more important than revenge" or something. The problem with both is that they are literally making you read it, instead of showing it happen.
Ultimately, the running and being an Olympic athlete are beside any point the film is trying to make. In short, it's missing heart. Yes, it is admirable showing the guy's bravery and stoicism, but it's a pummeling tale of life in a Japanese POW camp. At the end, he survives, barely. It's like, as a pitch, someone says: "there's this immigrant Italian kid who made the Olympic team, competed in Hitler's Olympics, was in a B-24 crew in WWII, got shot down, survived being adrift for 47 days, was sent to a POW camp for two plus years, and came home." Then someone in the room should have said, "Yes, and?"
Unbroken is well made but emotionally muted.
6/10
Last edited:
I didn't know this film, but put like that, you could say it sounds like a boring version of Forest Gump!
Forest Gump in a POW camp does sound interesting, not gonna lie.
The Kitchen
New Netflix film is was really looking forward to. Basic premise is the bonding between an estranged father and son in dystopian London. Kane Robinson seems a great actor but there just wasn’t enough going on in the film. Just never got going and nothing really happened and ambled along for 100 minutes.
Quite a surprise to see Ian Wright playing a role in the film and did a good job in fairness.
Not sure if I missed something but was pretty happy when it ended.
5/10
Trailer looked great though
New Netflix film is was really looking forward to. Basic premise is the bonding between an estranged father and son in dystopian London. Kane Robinson seems a great actor but there just wasn’t enough going on in the film. Just never got going and nothing really happened and ambled along for 100 minutes.
Quite a surprise to see Ian Wright playing a role in the film and did a good job in fairness.
Not sure if I missed something but was pretty happy when it ended.
5/10
Trailer looked great though
Oscar incoming.
I don’t think someone can make this type of film about themselves and not be a massive arsehole in real life.
Oh my God I'm so excited
Oppenheimer - Nolan just can't let go of the genre conventions, bin off the trite biopic and court room drama stuff, make it all about Oppenheimer, his feelings, his visions (like the interstitial ones in the beginning of the film), his spirituality (Bhagavad Gita ), that way the ending of the film feels earned and it's more than just a three hour movie trailer.
Fallen Leaves - Kaurismäki makes the same movie he's made for the past 40 years and it's unsurprisingly the movie of the year.
Fallen Leaves - Kaurismäki makes the same movie he's made for the past 40 years and it's unsurprisingly the movie of the year.
Last edited:
Lift: A 2024 action comedy Heist movie by F. Gary Gray featuring Kevin Hart as a thieving mastermind and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as the Interpol agent who's after but now has to collaborate on a very special heist - which is all complicated by them having had a brief fling in the past.
I like heist movies and action comedies generally, so this was pretty easy to enjoy - but only in a very superficial sort of way. The plot has enormous holes, there are too highly many convenient bits, and the characters are too clichéd to enjoy the film as the light bit of nonsense it intends to be. 2.5/5
Only God Forgives: A 2013 thriller by Nicolas Winding Refn featuring Ryan Gosling most prominently. Set in Bangkok, it's mostly a revenge film, where a whole chain of (often gory) killings is triggered after the brother of Gosling's character murders a teenage prostitute.
This reminded me of Mandy actually, in the way the story is extremely flat and underdeveloped and the film is really all about its style and feel. But while Mandy seems like a joyful labour of love, Only God Forgives is grim and bleak and unpleasant. Refn also made Drive, and this film has basically the exact same quiet, stilted, precise, dramatic style. But while that gave Drive gravitas, Only God Forgives remains a bleak bit of nothing where the stiltedness just feels bizarre. 2/5
Nyad: A 2023 biographical sports drama about long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad and her attempts in the early 2010s to swim from Cuba to Florida, featuring Annette Bening, Jodie Foster, and Rhys Ifans.
Sports dramas are sports dramas: you know what you'll be getting and you like 'm or you don't. I generally do like them, so it worked for me. I am not a great fan of the historical bits that were overlooked in the film (it sells some people short and overlooks some of Nyad's lies - but then her character does face a good bit of criticism, so I guess it's fine); but purely as a film, this worked quite well, and great acting by all three actors mentioned. The film doesn't really have something really elevating it above the pack, but it's really solid. 3/5
I like heist movies and action comedies generally, so this was pretty easy to enjoy - but only in a very superficial sort of way. The plot has enormous holes, there are too highly many convenient bits, and the characters are too clichéd to enjoy the film as the light bit of nonsense it intends to be. 2.5/5
Only God Forgives: A 2013 thriller by Nicolas Winding Refn featuring Ryan Gosling most prominently. Set in Bangkok, it's mostly a revenge film, where a whole chain of (often gory) killings is triggered after the brother of Gosling's character murders a teenage prostitute.
This reminded me of Mandy actually, in the way the story is extremely flat and underdeveloped and the film is really all about its style and feel. But while Mandy seems like a joyful labour of love, Only God Forgives is grim and bleak and unpleasant. Refn also made Drive, and this film has basically the exact same quiet, stilted, precise, dramatic style. But while that gave Drive gravitas, Only God Forgives remains a bleak bit of nothing where the stiltedness just feels bizarre. 2/5
Nyad: A 2023 biographical sports drama about long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad and her attempts in the early 2010s to swim from Cuba to Florida, featuring Annette Bening, Jodie Foster, and Rhys Ifans.
Sports dramas are sports dramas: you know what you'll be getting and you like 'm or you don't. I generally do like them, so it worked for me. I am not a great fan of the historical bits that were overlooked in the film (it sells some people short and overlooks some of Nyad's lies - but then her character does face a good bit of criticism, so I guess it's fine); but purely as a film, this worked quite well, and great acting by all three actors mentioned. The film doesn't really have something really elevating it above the pack, but it's really solid. 3/5
Only God Forgives was dreadful. Unwatchable.
Absolutely hated Only God Forgives all those years ago at the cinema. Terrible film.
The Creator (2023) Film on DISNEY +
Lots of budget and a good production design ethos makes this film look absolutely great. However the Plot has so many holes you could drive a huge mechanized war vehicle through it just becomes farcical. I can't believe some critics have rated this highly because the plot just makes no sense what-so-ever.
What is really frustrating is that a massive budget and great design have been squandered with such terrible plotting. Making a film about the positive / negative approach to AI had great potential and this could have been a great film if the plot made more sense and didn't have so many bewildering moments where things clearly happen....so that the next thing can happen, rather than have any logic or strategy behind them.
The film tries to make links back to the Vietnam war but then wimps out on this, perhaps because it doesn't want to offend American sensibilities?
A frustrating waste of a potentially good film
Lots of budget and a good production design ethos makes this film look absolutely great. However the Plot has so many holes you could drive a huge mechanized war vehicle through it just becomes farcical. I can't believe some critics have rated this highly because the plot just makes no sense what-so-ever.
1) The "death from above" orbital killing platform (NOMAD) that, for some reason drops down to around 10,000 feet ASL to make itself visible and projects a huge visible target on the ground, warning people that they are about to be attacked
2) The initial "Raid" against Nirmata we later learn is because the military find out that Maya IS Nirmata....and she is wearing a tracking ring at the time...so why not just bomb the beach back to the stone age while she sleeps? Also the Agent is explicitly told to find Maya and get her to "wear the ring" which makes their relationship very questionable ethically, rather than the "great romance" the Agent seems to believe it is.
3) Multiple agencies, Police, Droids and Simulants can't seem to find the ONLY BLACK PERSON ONSCREEN in crowded streets of New Asia - (Surely they could have had shown that New Asia would be ethnically diverse?)
4) The Military apparently want the "weapon" destroyed at all costs...but then stop attacking with devastating tanks, missiles and "death from above" to send in "Suicide Dusty Bin Bombs" to run across a bridge.....so that the Weapon can make a show of "stopping them" I guess?
5) When the Military "capture" the weapon, separate them into different planes but then wait a while for the agent to be revived and then bring him to a secure location and "make" him kill it, rather than any passing grunt just offing them - for reasons?.... handy way to create an escape plan too!
6) The "weapon" having to go to a specific place in the NOMAD in order to switch it off, rather than any access point, but then doesn't bother to destroy the countless cruise missiles targeting the rebel bases. It also forgets it can control any machinery and lets some machinery injure and trap the Agent onboard the doomed NOMAD.
7) The Military have been dead against any AI/Simulants but just happen to have loads on board the NOMAD in storage, one of which has Maya's face, just so the Agent can download that memory chip of his wife...Isn't it lucky that (for some reason) the military guys carry around a machine to extract memories from recently deceased people and showed us how that works earlier!
8) The AI / Simulants don't seem to have very good aim, or thermal imaging, or radar guidance (or any other enhancement that is obvious) and so they don't seem to be effective rebels, so in what way are they a real threat?
IF the military were actually trying to secretly capture the Weapon to exploit it's potential, then some of these tactics might have made sense. Even maybe trying to use the Agent to "win over" the Weapon would explain the weird capture scenes. However it's made explicit that the Western powers just essentially want to destroy all AI but they don't just drop EMP bombs on the sites and then send in clean up crews.
2) The initial "Raid" against Nirmata we later learn is because the military find out that Maya IS Nirmata....and she is wearing a tracking ring at the time...so why not just bomb the beach back to the stone age while she sleeps? Also the Agent is explicitly told to find Maya and get her to "wear the ring" which makes their relationship very questionable ethically, rather than the "great romance" the Agent seems to believe it is.
3) Multiple agencies, Police, Droids and Simulants can't seem to find the ONLY BLACK PERSON ONSCREEN in crowded streets of New Asia - (Surely they could have had shown that New Asia would be ethnically diverse?)
4) The Military apparently want the "weapon" destroyed at all costs...but then stop attacking with devastating tanks, missiles and "death from above" to send in "Suicide Dusty Bin Bombs" to run across a bridge.....so that the Weapon can make a show of "stopping them" I guess?
5) When the Military "capture" the weapon, separate them into different planes but then wait a while for the agent to be revived and then bring him to a secure location and "make" him kill it, rather than any passing grunt just offing them - for reasons?.... handy way to create an escape plan too!
6) The "weapon" having to go to a specific place in the NOMAD in order to switch it off, rather than any access point, but then doesn't bother to destroy the countless cruise missiles targeting the rebel bases. It also forgets it can control any machinery and lets some machinery injure and trap the Agent onboard the doomed NOMAD.
7) The Military have been dead against any AI/Simulants but just happen to have loads on board the NOMAD in storage, one of which has Maya's face, just so the Agent can download that memory chip of his wife...Isn't it lucky that (for some reason) the military guys carry around a machine to extract memories from recently deceased people and showed us how that works earlier!
8) The AI / Simulants don't seem to have very good aim, or thermal imaging, or radar guidance (or any other enhancement that is obvious) and so they don't seem to be effective rebels, so in what way are they a real threat?
IF the military were actually trying to secretly capture the Weapon to exploit it's potential, then some of these tactics might have made sense. Even maybe trying to use the Agent to "win over" the Weapon would explain the weird capture scenes. However it's made explicit that the Western powers just essentially want to destroy all AI but they don't just drop EMP bombs on the sites and then send in clean up crews.
What is really frustrating is that a massive budget and great design have been squandered with such terrible plotting. Making a film about the positive / negative approach to AI had great potential and this could have been a great film if the plot made more sense and didn't have so many bewildering moments where things clearly happen....so that the next thing can happen, rather than have any logic or strategy behind them.
The film tries to make links back to the Vietnam war but then wimps out on this, perhaps because it doesn't want to offend American sensibilities?
A frustrating waste of a potentially good film
Last edited:
I saw some critics gave it full points and that it featured in a list of best films of the decade so far (the 2010s). I just don't get that. Yes, stylistically it's well done, but there has to be a link between style and content. This film was so devoid of meaning and its story so flat and uninteresting (zero character development, no surprises, and so on) that Refn's stylistic approach seems completely inappropriate to me. How critics can think of this as a truly great movie is entirely beyond me.
Last edited:
Wannabe dickhead filmmakers that aren't able to see that style should serve a story and is (usually) not enough in itself.
I actually don't even think it was that good aesthetically - sure, there was "style" and Refn spent a lot of time on how the film looked, but I found it very dull looking, overly dark (you're allowed to light some scenes) and just in general meh. Felt more like a cinema student art project, something where the idea of style was more important than actually thinking about what you were gonna be showing, and just really really boring. I really hated it.
I saw Only God Forgives about 3 months ago and liked it
Helps that it's only 90 minutes, I like looking at pretty cinematography I'm sorry!
Helps that it's only 90 minutes, I like looking at pretty cinematography I'm sorry!
It's hard to value style if it seems to have zero link to the events of the film, so certainly in that sense I wouldn't say it was strong stylistically. But I do appreciate that at least Refn did implement a distinct style and followed it through. A lot of films I watch (admittedly and unfortunately not nearly enough films that appear to have real artistic intentions) seem to lack that entirely - the camera points to the action and that's about it.
That's a gross simplicifation of course, but I do think there is often relatively little consideration for how visual style can be a value-add in the films I see. And when there is, it can be very inconsistent. As a totally random example, in Lift (see my review above), there is a scene where the main characters are talking to someone at a table in a bar. Behind that third person there's a mirror, and at the start of the conversation, there is one shot where the camera focuses on the third person when he speaks, and then focuses on the two main characters in the mirror when they speak, blurring the third person. It only happens once; after that, we get the usual rhythm with different shots each time someone else speaks, jumping from person to person along with the conversation. That one moment was visually interesting, but it meant nothing in the context of the action and I can't remember any other shot throughout the film that struck me visually.
It seems a lot of films I watch are like that, and so I can appreciate that Refn really does have a strong stylistic approach and implements it well. I guess he just needs someone else to give him a story that's worth this effort!
@Gringo - that's OK, I forgive you for your poor opinion.
I'll add that I tend to suck at seeing deeper meaning and underlying layers in movies, so maybe half the time I see this sort of clash it's really on me, not the film makers.
I think it’s a good introduction to slow cinema.
There are themes imo(Revenge, abusive parent relationship, paying for the sins of others, etc). But I can easily see why people hate it although I can’t help but think there’s a magic to the film. I’ll have to watch it a full watch again.
Also I think the context of when it was made gives the film as cult classic vibe. Drive is not only a genuine masterpiece but was a pretty decent commercial success. Refn could have easily just lived in LA hitting the copy and past button for a good few years. Yet he goes to Thailand and makes this very slow paced strange film(Killing a lot hyper/good he had with any mass audience). It’s sort of admirable and rare nowadays.
And it’s responsible for this amazing moment -
Only God forgives.@Gringo - that's OK, I forgive you for your poor opinion.
Aw man I'm sad you liked it. Well no, good for you, it's always better than hating things with a passion. Also thanks for that video - Friedkin was great, Refn seems to be an arrogant cock.
Yeah, I agree there is a variety of themes in there, but I thought it was all pretty surface-level, obvious stuff. Not much exploration, no development (basically the first scence that makes the theme clear tells you all you need to know), etc. Or maybe I'm setting my bar too high here.
I do agree that it's a positive that the film really plays in Bangkok though. It's not just some couleur locale on what's really another Hollywood film. But I anyway didn't know Drive was this big hit; most people I know hated it! (Exactly because of Refn's style; I guess they had expected (or wanted) something less brooding, more action-y!)
And how do you know I'm not?
The thing with Refn is that Drive was the outlier. His other works are a lot more in line with the vibe, esthetic, and lack of plot as seen in Only Cheimoon Forgives. Pusher, Bronson, Valhalla Rising, The Neon Demon, they are more similar than they are dissimilar.
Only Cheimoon Forgives looked amazing. The trailer was incredible. And Gosling is one of the best actors of his generation. I have a bit of an inside scoop on Refn and his process, though. Basically Drive was a shock, people didn't expect it to be as adored as it was. In large part, the producers stepped in and forced a bunch of alterations on Refn that made the film more commercial. Because of its reception, Gosling said he'd do any script that Refn ate up with next, and the result was Only Cheimoon Forgives. They also holed up and edited for something like a year.
I actually really like Refn's work, too, just this film was poop. So was Neon Demon. Only God Forgives plus Neon Demon was like two bad acid trips in a row, and I'm never taking acid again. I believe Refn doesn't care at all about commercial viability.
Only God Forgives is different. Very slow. But i prefer that to the superhero films any day.
Interesting. I should see more of Refn's work then - but not The Neon Demon I guess.
I also like that autocorrect thing you got going there. Something for the mods to consider forum-wide.
Found this on wiki about Only Cheimoon Forgives:
Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph reflected concerns over the film in a three out of five star review. "The film's characters are non-people; the things they say to each other are non-conversations, the events they enact are non-drama," he wrote. But he praised Refn for following up his commercially successful film Drive with "...this abstruse, neon-dunked nightmare that spits in the face of coherence and flicks at the earlobes of good taste".[30]
Couldn't agree more.
Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph reflected concerns over the film in a three out of five star review. "The film's characters are non-people; the things they say to each other are non-conversations, the events they enact are non-drama," he wrote. But he praised Refn for following up his commercially successful film Drive with "...this abstruse, neon-dunked nightmare that spits in the face of coherence and flicks at the earlobes of good taste".[30]
Couldn't agree more.
Yeah, I read that, and there some interesting bits in the IMDB trivia also. I can't but like his approach to film making - even if I didn't actually like the film it resulted in.
It's one of those movies that might have played better without sound. It made have made more sense if you just went by actor's expressions and guessed what they were flapping their mouths about. 3 out of 5 stars is wildly generous. I'd give it a 3/10.Yeah, I read that, and there some interesting bits in the IMDB trivia also. I can't but like his approach to film making - even if I didn't actually like the film it resulted in.
Friedkin's a real dick.
Using the search function, you seem to be the only person who talked about this film. My girlfriend watched it the other day and recommended it to me without telling me too much about it, I went in not expecting much... and I was blown away. It's absolutely beautiful. It's so wonderfully understated, everything is soft and well thought out, it feels pure and minimalistic, and the aesthetic of the whole film is soothing, peaceful and pleasing. That's before you get to the performances (all absolutely perfect) and the depth of the story that will affect everyone differently but this portrayal of loss, examination of what it means to live, the impact our lives have on others with the backdrop of AI (and technology more widely) totally integrated into our daily lives resonated big time for me. I thought it was really lovely and it's a film I can see it becoming a regular yearly watch alongside films like Eternal Sunshine (for different reasons) and my thoughts on what it's showing changing along with my life experiences.
It's a beautiful film that I don't think is mentioned enough (I don't think I'd really heard about it). I forgot to mention the score of the film, which was one of Ryuichi Sakamoto's last before dying, it perfectly fits the overall tone of the film and is extremely pleasing.
I also rewatched Silence recently, and it's up there with the very best Scorsese films. Beautiful film about faith and resilience, wonderfully put together (Scorsese is such a bloody good filmmaker, you really feel like you're in 17th century Japan in an almost visceral way. It's such a good film.
Disagree. Hating things with a passion is always much more fun!
I think it’s a difficult one as the slow cinema style (At least going from what Paul Schrader has said)goal is to force the viewer to engage with the work by having not a lot happening on the screen. They put themes on the surface and let it sit which creates a mood/vibe but does lack development. It could genuinely be a limitation of this type of film making.
His first film - Columbus is on YouTube. Well worth watching. Another beautiful work.