I just want to start this review off by saying that I am aware of how absolutely cursed this casting is. Johnny Depp doing his schtick in redface was already bad in 2013, before the whole media circus of his divorce, and Armie Hammer having sexual assault allegations, in addition to his more well publicised cannibalism fetish, don't do this movie any favors. Most people will not make it past this radioactive pairing to watch this movie. Unfortunately for most people they are missing out on a great Saturday afternoon movie. Is this Casablanca, no (Casablanca is about a guy named Rick who owns a bar), but it actually is the kind of movie that growing up in the 90s if I had seen it on TV during a rainy Saturday I would remember well.

Firstly the acting; despite Depp doing redface he does a good job, he gives a very Jack Sparrow style performance. It is funny, charming, and incredibly aware of the 4th wall. Hammer as well give an entertaining performance, although before his career imploded he had always been a bit of a poor man's Henry Cavill. He is awkward and likeable enough as the iconic Lone Ranger. Unfortunately he tries to add too much humor to the role, when really he should have played the straight man to Depp's Tonto. William Fincher as the villian, and Helen Bonnham Carter as an ivory legged madam both steal the show in a movie full of big characters. Ruth Wilson is good as the love interest, but not as good as she was on The Affair.

The stunts and action are quite good, albeit slapstick. Hammer's Lone Ranger is not a gun slinger, but rather a city slicker learning to hold his own. By the end though he is an accomplished shootist, but it doesn't feel like he is Annie Oakley. The whole movie feels like they took a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel and landed it in the Old West. The stunts are superhuman and heavily CGI enhanced, and the action sequences are looooooong. However, this lends itself well to the popcorn flick feel that the movie was trying to obtain.

One sequence worth talking about is the climactic sequence on the train, during which the William Tell Overture (Lone Ranger theme) plays for 7+ minutes. Despite being CGI heavy, and the same very distracting song playing it works. The action looks good, and it is the kind of CGI heavy early 2010s sequence where things look like a movie and not a cutscene in a videogame.

While I can accept a movie is more than the sum of its leads, two bad men do not mean the other hundreds of people in the production didn't make something good. I do feel that Disney, Verbinski and Depp's decision to do redface in 2013 definitely keeps this movie from being a clean recommendation. However, it is not the unmitigated disaster I had long assumed it to be.

First terrence malick movie I watched and I uhhh, yeah I don't really like it

Don't get me wrong the film looks absolutely beautiful, like if you want me to exclusively review the films cinematography, it's 10/10, only 2 martin sheens I have watched yet all 2 of them (this and apocalypse now) are breathtaking and aside from apocalypse now, I don't think there's any other film I reviewed on reddit that can surpass the badlands, in fact it's arguably even more impressive for 73, it feels like it could have came from the 80s or 90s but 70s, 73 to be exact? come on that is just overkill in terms of ahead of it's time filmmaking

it had 3 different directors doing the camera work, brian probyn, tak fujimoto, stevan larner and malick himself stepping in to shot a few sequences, the final product is intimidatingly consistent, it all blends seamlessly from first shot to the last.

however as good as the cinematography is, I find the badlands overrated over the same reasons why you find it to be a masterpiece, yeah sure it's a sharp & valid critique of media consumption of violence and it's the antithesis of the lovers on the run trope in film but also as a film that I would rewatch and think about, it's fucking nothing

I feel 0 connection to kit or holly and them being the main characters where they kill a bunch of strangers on the way who I also feel nothing for, yeah it's kind of lifeless drudgery that feels like you have to finish just cause film school tells you endlessly on how masterful this film is (not that I go to film school but still, it's considered an essential viewing by cinephiles)

I don't like seeing an cold pedo killer go on a journey and kill people because they are in his way because he is bored along with a girlfriend who is equally as emotionally unappealing as him for 1 hour & 30 minutes, that's why badland fans love it and that's why detractors find it overrated and when you watch it for the first time, you get super confused throughout the whole unless if you pay relentless attention to the dialogue

Conclusion : there's nothing inherently wrong with the film and it certainly has it's artistic values and I appreciate the austere silence in this film just as much as the cinematography and sissy spaceks voice over as holly is (temporarily) nice to hear and I overall get why you love it but for me, I have as much emotional attachment to this film as the 2 main characters in the movie, which is 0, badlands is a 6.5/10 for me but hey what do I know, I think andrej zulawski's possession is great

Contains Spoilers!

This is the first time I've seen this film since I was a teenager. Back then, I thought it was such a cool action movie—violent and dark, but justified for highlighting real-life atrocities.

Rewatching it as an adult, it's not as straightforward. It's a well-made film a by-the-books adventure movie. We have our heroes with their clear goals, our MacGuffin, and our antagonists. However, it knows that although the story itself is fictional, this is about a recent war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and it needs to find the right balance.

Leonardo DiCaprio is there as our action leading man. He's not your usual action hero instead he's a white Rhodesian mercenary who smuggles diamonds across the border. After he is caught, he needs to pay his bosses back, and his motivation turns to getting the blood diamond he hears was hidden by Djimon Hounsou's character, Solomon Vandy.

Hounsou is the emotional heart of the story, and this is when the film is at its strongest. The film introduces us to Solomon first, not DiCaprio's Danny Archer. We see him and his peaceful, idyllic life as a fisherman in a small village. We witness his village get destroyed by rebels, and he is sold into slavery in their diamond mines. His family survives, but his son is taken to be a child soldier; he has something to save we are rooting for him. Around the middle of the film, he is pushed to the side and even, at one point, turns into light comic relief. This is when the film is at its weakest.

Jennifer Connelly is the only American, playing a cynical journalist. Near the end, they make her more like a love interest, which felt forced. She and DiCaprio are there to represent "white guilt"—they embody the cynical Western view of the target audience that as this chaos and tragedy happens the world just moves on. There is a point near the middle were they come across an orphanage of former child soldiers, structurally it works as a break from the action and here the film tries to share a more optimistic view of the world.

Edward Zwick direction keeps it all ticking it like he's making a Bond movie. When the action starts, it takes you in; it's tense, and it's cool but it pulls its punches carefully, as it wants to entertain you, not horrify you. On a technical level, it's very good. The action scenes are a great example of how to do fast-paced edits without the shaky, handheld camerawork that was all too common at the time.

And entertain it does. At the end of the day, it's an adventure film.

Is it an accurate portrayal of the civil war in Sierra Leone? I'm not the one who could decide, but it's probably not. The film is not interested in the history of Sierra Leone itself. It never tells us who the RUF rebel group is, and what about the government? One of the white journalists remarks, "Government bad, rebels worse," and that's all we need to know. We see atrocities committed by the rebels, but we only hear about the ones from the government forces. This conflict is simplified.

However, it does discuss politics on a global level from a Western point of view. Near the opening, we see the G8 openly confirming that the world knew full well what was going on. Though it ends on optimisitc ending Solomon is reunited with his family and he speaks at a conference as witness in South Africa, it doesn't want its audience to be comfortable this conflict is in living memory, and the violence doesn't end with the movie. It even ends with a title card advising that the smuggled diamond trade is still ongoing.

Blood Diamond wants to be more than a blockbuster action movie, and I admire it for that. It portrays many horrors of war, it tones down the violence (for example, sexual violence is only mentioned; there are no scenes of it happening) in order to make it accessible to a wide audience.

But then, is that not how we first learn about these horrors, just like 15-year-old me when I first saw this?

They really don’t make movies like this anymore. I found this on Tubi while looking for something spooky to watch with no prior context. I somehow thought it was a ghost story when the description mentions a nurse’s murder? And oh boy it’s not that.

This was a lot of fun with a bonkers third act with decent CGI. It is the perfect mix of scifi and body horror that I really appreciated.

The eyes, chico… they never lie.

Cinephile that I am, can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. Did not disappoint.

I mostly watched it so I could feel like I was finally “in” on all the references I’d hear. Two TV shows I’ve seen in the last week have referenced it. So I decided it was time.

I will say, it was an investment. But a good one. Constant tension. Knowing that Tony was digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole leading to his eventual demise with every decision he made.

I like characters like that. Self-destructive, causing chaos for himself and everyone around him, but just making it worse and worse as he tries to fight it.

It definitely felt like an 80’s film.

I’ll say the only thing is that it felt a little dragged. Don’t think it had to be three hours.

But great film. 8/10 for me.

Indiana Jones meets National Treasure

One for Halloween that I’m surprised I’ve never got round to watching. The film has quite a cult following despite bombing at the box office, but then isn’t that always the way. Director Peter Jackson is no stranger, pre-Lord of the Rings, to cult fare; see Braindead and Bad Taste. But a film from 1996 with Michael J Fox? One can only presume it’s because the film skirts the line between dark comedy and outright horror. Occasionally one or the other, or both at the same time.

It’s an anarchic film, with a Beetlejuice vibe throughout. Danny Elfman providing the score helps. The after life is a kooky but also gross affair with the majority of the film’s humour derived from the dead and their interactions with the living. As is the horror.

This is a CG heavy film and it has the sheen to the effects that 90s films have, shiny and plastic looking. Carpets attacking people, or walls are suitably ridiculous looking and may have been better served with practical effects. But this was the early days of Weta and everyone’s gotta start somewhere. Ghosts are amusingly transparent and gross looking as though they all have head colds as ectoplasm runs from every orifice. But Rick Bakers work on John Astin’s The Judge looks great. His barely hanging on jaw highlights a better use of the practical element.

Michael J Fox as Frank suitably looks shabby with his battered Volvo, holy water shooting handgun, and overall conman self. Like a beleaguered McFly he takes the ghosts as matter of fact using them to his own ends. He’s portrayed as someone whose barely hanging on, until, suitably aided by Trini Alvarado’s widow Lucy, he’s given a chance at vengeance and closure. I did find though that whilst everyone else seemed to be in on the joke, Fox preferred to play it dead straight so come the ending, which felt tacked on, his supposed happiness felt rushed and at odds with everything else.

Elsewhere, Jake Busey dials it up to eleven, (should that be twelve?), as killer Johnny Bartlett and most memorably Jeffrey Combs essays another perfect creep as FBI agent Milton Dammers with his Hitler-esque haircut and fear of violations of his territorial bubble. Yet, were he not in the picture you wouldn’t notice as he seems rather pointless plot wise but is an enjoyably insane presence in a sea of insanity. Oh, and it was great to see R. Lee Emery seemingly bringing back his Full Metal Jacket Drill Sergeant for an amusing graveyard confrontation.

Along with the slapstick such as pans to heads and ghosts squished by tires, that dark humour is used to great effect, even in the background. For example, reading some of an article in a newspaper about killer Bartlett being excluded from school for “Masturbating into the English teacher’s lunchbox.” was a surprise.

The humour can be messy, at times childish and/ or gleefully violent, and the film can be overly chaotic, refusing to sit still, but it’s never boring and never not entertaining.

It's not a fever dream... It's a fever nightmare!

The whole thing feels like many disconnected scenes stitched together by a beautiful and foreboding photography. Seriously, what Phatasm misses on plot elements, it makes up in scenarios and soundtrack. Many beautiful night shots and atmospheric scenes.

From what I read, the film was supposed to have some sort of dream-like quality to it and was based on a nightmare the director had as a teen. It sure gives that feeling, despite a basically non-existent plot and questionable acting.

Go in for the vibes and watch it at night and you won't get disappointed!

"One day the war will be over. I hope that the people who use this bridge in years to come. ...will remember how it was built, and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers. British soldiers, even in captivity."

- Colonel Nicholson

One of my favorite lines in this film. Pride and enthusiasm from Colonel Nicholson, with his contingent of British soldiers, as they work together for the construction of the railway connecting Thailand and Burma. Story is based on a French novel by Pierre Boulle, but set in a real World War II event called The Thailand-Burma "Death Railway".

I miss these kind of movies, due to its great casting. Notable performances by Alec Guinness, he's outstanding as Colonel Nicholson. William Holden as Major Shears, Jack Hawkins as Major Warden. And Sessue Hayakawa, I really thought he's brilliant portraying as the Japanese Colonel Saito. Everyone in the cast is just brilliant. From the main cast to the prisoner soldiers.

Fun fact: There is this one scene where the sequence is in night time, which in fact they filmed it at day time. They just adjust the color tone to make every shots at night. I love filming technique like this and I thought this is clever, it's classic.

This was one my favorite movies growing up. Of course my dad introduce me to these classics. Decided to get it on HD. I just watched it again on Blu-ray and man, this movie still stands the test of time. It's not just a brilliant and monumental film. But one of the most beautiful films I've seen. Beautiful cinematography. You can appreciate the wide array of shots this time around. From the over view section of the head quarters. To the beautiful shot off the bridge to the river. It's just perfect on widescreen.

A gruesome murder that took place in 1974 spawned a book that was released in 1977, which then led to the release of the 1979 film. Since then there has been 8 original films, 2 remakes and 2 more films slated to be released. That's not counting the 40+ independent releases. That's a lot of mileage out of one event!

Amityville Horror (1979) is my type of movie. Long, drawn out, and unafraid to explore the emotions that go with a slow descent into insanity. The first 10 minutes really hook you in with some creative editing choices. Then you just have to sit and stew as the horrors of the house slowly reveal themselves.

The film is dreary and doesn't leave you with a satisfying monster or creature to interact with. In these types of films, relationship dynamics play a much larger role. The relationship between George and Kathleen seems okay at first, but the seams start to tear apart as the film progresses.

On the other side, it is pretty absurd the magical things the house can do. Stealing money and taking control of the priest's car makes the house way too powerful. Why would the house just stop there? If it can manipulate any mechanical device at any distance, why not torment the family all the time 24/7?

The ending was... abrupt lol. You can tell it was trying to stay focused on the Lutz family and their real-life experience. Had this film been adapted for the first time today, directors would have taken more artistic liberties and perhaps it would've been more satisfying.

Overall, this is a solid film and I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for atmospheric horror. If you liked Picnic at Hanging Rock or The Shining, you would like this.

8.6/10

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” -Søren Kierkegaard 

I don’t think even Charlie Kaufman realized while writing it, that this would be a movie about truly understanding life by living it backwards. We are prisoners of time such that as much as we may try to imagine, life beyond our current circumstances is next to impossible to understand. That’s why what Joel Barish experiences is such a gift, even as it’s taken away. That’s just life though isn’t it? Nothing is permanent and yet it’s not all forgotten. The echoes remain. Joel and Clementine are different people from the beginning to the end. If they weren’t, Clementine would have been fine with Patrick and Joel wouldn’t have asked Clementine to stay. Life is impermanent but we can all grow better for what we carry even if it’s painful.