Just did so, and it’s excellent.
2 Likes
Awesome. Let’s keep that snowball rolling. Someone else with Hulu fire it up.
LKJ simply confusing al pacino in the 70s with al pacino in his 70s
“The kind of money I was spending and where it was going was just a crazy montage of loss,” he adds. “The landscaper was getting $400,000 a year and, I don’t exaggerate these things. It just went on and on. Mind you, that was for landscaping at a house I didn’t even live in.”
Pacino was in his 70s when he learned he was broke, adding: “I wasn’t a young buck, and I was not going to be making the kind of money from acting in films that I had made before. The big paydays that I was used to just weren’t coming around anymore. The pendulum had swung, and I found it harder to find parts for myself.”
Before he went broke, Pacino “was doing films if I thought I related to the part and felt I could bring something.” Examples that fit this career mentality were “Ocean’s 13” and “88 Minutes,” even if the latter title turned out to be “a disaster,” per the actor. But once Pacino went broke, he had to throw out any regulations for his career and start accepting whatever roles offered up big money. That’s why he agreed to star in Adam Sandler’s notorious “Jack and Jill” and ended his ban against doing commercials.
3 Likes
I actually can’t tell whether you took my earlier post seriously now, but: 70s Pacino is one of the greatest decades an actor has ever posted.
4 Likes
Thanks for the rec on It’s What’s Inside. That was a cool watch. Hated Shelby though
3 Likes
Barbarian (2022)
I really wasn’t entirely sure what to expect from this movie. I’d heard probably no less than a dozen people trot out the infamous “GO INTO THIS MOVIE KNOWING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE” disclaimer, which is a well-meaning but utterly annoying disclaimer. Still, I learned essentially nothing, so I guess I heeded the disclaimer. The movie also receives an intense amount of love from many that felt mismatched with its (at this writing) 3.5 Letterboxd average, so I couldn’t help but keep my expectations reasonably muted.
Happy to report that I somewhat unexpectedly joined the group that loved this. The first 45 minutes were close to a perfect thrill ride. Beautifully shot, beautifully paced, just incredible tension-building and execution. I’m kind of instantly sold on Zach Cregger based on this viewing alone. This movie is structured in a way where it makes choices to relieve tension in really abrupt ways followed by undertaking the clearly difficult task of somehow getting the viewer back to where they were before. I just inherently appreciate trying to tackle a challenge like that. In the same way that you don’t respond to a normal person saying “I ran a marathon” with “where’d you place?” but instead go straight to “holy crap, that’s awesome,” I’m just going to appreciate an ambitious swing on its own. And, happily, I think Cregger pulls it off to at least a significant extent. I’m not sure I ever fully get back to the place of engrossment that I had during the extended first act of this movie, but the returns remained strong.
I don’t know if I actually loved our central villain, but I do think that the villain was at least unique. Again, it didn’t seem like Cregger was being risk-averse at all in the making of this. Now, unfortunately I do have to speak to the ending: “fuck off, that character is obviously dead, you do not get to decide that they are still alive” is possibly my greatest pet peeve in film. And Tess somehow surviving that fall and actually walking away is pathetic. I simply cannot apologize away that sequence no matter how much good will the movie had bought with me up to that point. However, I still loved the specific abrupt final moment transitioning into credits combined with the subversive needle-drop, and it was hard to stay mad at the stupidity that happened right before it.
All in all, a great experience that surpassed the expectations that I had been tempering leading up to watching it.
4/5
5 Likes
I’m so glad you watched it!
I think they made this trailer just for people who have already seen the movie.
2 Likes
Best smash cut maybe in cinema history!
Glad you liked it.
1 Like
This might be debatable as a smash cut, but if this counts then I think it’s getting my vote.
2 Likes
Hmmm isn’t it a quintessential smash cut? What makes you say it’s debatable?
1 Like
I just wasn’t sure if a cut to permanent black counted in the same way that the term seems to often refer to. I think you’re right though.
2 Likes
I’m talking about the cut to Justin long.
1 Like
Right, I figured. Which was why I questioned whether the Usual Suspects one counted; it’s not a jump from mood to mood, it’s a jump from mood to nothing.
2 Likes
Nice!
The first third is one of those movie experiences I would absolutely love to watch again for the first time. I was literally, no foolin on the edge of my seat for the majority of it. Just masterfully done suspense.
1 Like
I’m interested to see how it eventually plays on rewatch. Probably won’t be soon, but I’ll go back to that one. I do maintain the firm belief that a movie can’t be good, let alone great, unless it holds up on rewatch.
1 Like
It holds up, but suspense is really really hard to generate on a ascond rewatch. Hitchcock is mostly a one and done for me. (Vertigo and Rope are exceptions) I feel like you will likely knock Barbarian down a peg on rewatch, but there is a fair bit of fun to be had on the rewatch
1 Like
Oh lol me. I missed the point of the gif.
I don’t think I would call that a smash cut. It’s more a fade to black. It is a great cut though.
1 Like
But there’s no fade; it’s a full cut straight to black. And I also kind of feel like the musical note bolsters the argument. I don’t know. Like I said up front, I do think there’s room to say it isn’t one.
It took me two watches of The Birds just to go from hating it to loving it.
Ya looking around at some definitions it seems like usual suspects is widely considered a smash cut ending. Now I’m questioning if the cut I’m thinking of in Barbarian is a smash cut. lol.
1 Like