theinaniloquent
Joined Aug 2011
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews200
theinaniloquent's rating
Before anything else, I'd like to tell you all that this is my first Wes Anderson film. I've heard lots about him, but never got around to his films. With the release of Moonrise Kingdom coming closer and closer, I've decided to hand-pick one of his "classics" and click play. Let's just say I've came out happy..
My favorite thing is Anderson's style. You can obviously tell his style in films, because their quirkiness is off-the-wall hilarious. He obviously has the sense of very subtle humor at times, but turns right back around and gives us a very dry sense of humor. I loved it, because it enhanced the film greater narratively and artistically.
I found the acting great. There's lots of well-known names in this gem, but none of them play their usual roles. Anderson made them play good to their part, and good to their material. I especially loved Bill Murray, who plays the not-so sarcastic one in this movie, which is different because in all his others, he played one. He had short-screen time, but the scenes he was in, keep all eyes on him.
The film had it's faults. Not sure if they were done purposely but they set off the mood (pun intended.) The film suffers from strange tonal shifts, that kind of give off the wrong impression. My brother watched the first twenty minutes, fell asleep, then woke up in the last twenty minutes. He thought he was watching an entire different movie! The first half is built of it's main source: quirkiness. But then the second half turns right around and turns melodramatic. Some scenes dragged out, the style seemed to fend out some great scenes, and blah, blah, blah. It still was a great film, which I greatly enjoyed.
For my first Wes Anderson film, I can tell what this man is doing and accomplishing. He feeds the film his style and projects it so it makes you feel an array of emotions. For my first Wes Anderson film, I liked it. It suffered from strange tonal shifts, but all else was great. It was quirky, witty, and had a subtle amount of poignancy.
My favorite thing is Anderson's style. You can obviously tell his style in films, because their quirkiness is off-the-wall hilarious. He obviously has the sense of very subtle humor at times, but turns right back around and gives us a very dry sense of humor. I loved it, because it enhanced the film greater narratively and artistically.
I found the acting great. There's lots of well-known names in this gem, but none of them play their usual roles. Anderson made them play good to their part, and good to their material. I especially loved Bill Murray, who plays the not-so sarcastic one in this movie, which is different because in all his others, he played one. He had short-screen time, but the scenes he was in, keep all eyes on him.
The film had it's faults. Not sure if they were done purposely but they set off the mood (pun intended.) The film suffers from strange tonal shifts, that kind of give off the wrong impression. My brother watched the first twenty minutes, fell asleep, then woke up in the last twenty minutes. He thought he was watching an entire different movie! The first half is built of it's main source: quirkiness. But then the second half turns right around and turns melodramatic. Some scenes dragged out, the style seemed to fend out some great scenes, and blah, blah, blah. It still was a great film, which I greatly enjoyed.
For my first Wes Anderson film, I can tell what this man is doing and accomplishing. He feeds the film his style and projects it so it makes you feel an array of emotions. For my first Wes Anderson film, I liked it. It suffered from strange tonal shifts, but all else was great. It was quirky, witty, and had a subtle amount of poignancy.
I heard about this film beforehand, and found it to be really intriguing. It sounded like one of those films that makes you think, makes you wonder, makes you feel shame. I'm a big fan of these, because they don't attempt to "Hollywood" everything, and actually try to convey emotion from the audience instead of trying to keep everything secreted and giving the audience a half-assed attempt at something. So I finished watching it about ten minutes ago, and I was blown away...
Shame is exactly how I had foresaw. It was brutal, vulgar, and raw. It was one of those films you are embarrassed to talk about, but deep down understanding it's reasoning and meaning. I was, firstly, blown away from Fassbender's performance. He was spellbinding. Without him, I think the film wouldn't of gotten the same reaction it did. Whatever scene he was in, keep your eyes on him, because he knocks it out of the park, and gives a realistic and haunting approach that you will be thinking about for days. I loved Mulligan too, who gave a different performance then when I first saw her in Drive. It was interesting to see, and fantastic to see her with diversity. But what the film is built off of is it's context. I hear people complaining that the film doesn't even know it's own material, and I laugh at them. I found the whole entire film understandable and real, and almost to an extent where I can understand the character's feelings. Then I hear people saying the movie was just a porno in disguise. I laugh at them as well. I felt that the whole vulgarity of the film was a way to push realism, and make you feel like the character himself. I liked it this way, and can clearly see that the film deserved it's NC-17 rating... The film was slow, and was built as a character study. Some people can clearly be put off by this, but you need to know what you're getting yourself into. I loved it. Didn't exactly enjoy it (as it's not exactly an entertaining experience) but appreciated it's artsy direction and also it's clear understanding of an addiction. I thought they did it right.
By the end, I was shook and shamed. The film is not exactly what you see everyday, and that's what made me love it so much. It has almost perfect acting, a realistic approach, a slow but fitting pace, and a depressing and haunting atmosphere that will leave you with a scar for days...
9/10.
Shame is exactly how I had foresaw. It was brutal, vulgar, and raw. It was one of those films you are embarrassed to talk about, but deep down understanding it's reasoning and meaning. I was, firstly, blown away from Fassbender's performance. He was spellbinding. Without him, I think the film wouldn't of gotten the same reaction it did. Whatever scene he was in, keep your eyes on him, because he knocks it out of the park, and gives a realistic and haunting approach that you will be thinking about for days. I loved Mulligan too, who gave a different performance then when I first saw her in Drive. It was interesting to see, and fantastic to see her with diversity. But what the film is built off of is it's context. I hear people complaining that the film doesn't even know it's own material, and I laugh at them. I found the whole entire film understandable and real, and almost to an extent where I can understand the character's feelings. Then I hear people saying the movie was just a porno in disguise. I laugh at them as well. I felt that the whole vulgarity of the film was a way to push realism, and make you feel like the character himself. I liked it this way, and can clearly see that the film deserved it's NC-17 rating... The film was slow, and was built as a character study. Some people can clearly be put off by this, but you need to know what you're getting yourself into. I loved it. Didn't exactly enjoy it (as it's not exactly an entertaining experience) but appreciated it's artsy direction and also it's clear understanding of an addiction. I thought they did it right.
By the end, I was shook and shamed. The film is not exactly what you see everyday, and that's what made me love it so much. It has almost perfect acting, a realistic approach, a slow but fitting pace, and a depressing and haunting atmosphere that will leave you with a scar for days...
9/10.
I was afraid. As you would all know, Greek mythology has been twisted and turned by loads of people. So much, in fact, their original origins are unknown, because so many "remakes" were made. Worse, this was a Disney production. Disney surely has some great films, but others are cringe-worthy. So what would it be? I watched the film as a class study of Greek mythology, and I'm proud to say the source material hasn't been tampered with THAT much..
First things first: great animation. For a 1997 film, the landscapes were beautiful to see, and this is a person who's seen all the CGI-made films nowadays. My favorite design was the hydra, who seemed 3D-like. They did a great job visualizing the characters and their designs, almost making us forget the fact they were, in fact, animated. Second things second: the music. At first glance, you would never know this is an adventure slash musical film. I really enjoyed the gospel singers and the songs snipped in from Hercules and Meg. They were nice to hear, and the gospel singers enhanced the stories by adding a new form of narration. Third things third: the plot. This is where the film falls apart, for me, because the writers obviously try to lean towards their initial audience. They stripped away some of the Greek mythology by trying to make it a family film, but they end up stripping too much away. There was some clever jokes packed in, especially dozens of pop- culture references, but none of them made up for the fact that they took too much away.
Bad things stop there. Hercules was a very fun film that doesn't take too much away from becoming a fraud. It packs in clever references to Greek mythology, packs in lush animation, and packs in a key item in animations: heart. I recommend for anybody wanting to see a film that can still be enjoyable albeit forgetting some of it's source material.
8/10.
First things first: great animation. For a 1997 film, the landscapes were beautiful to see, and this is a person who's seen all the CGI-made films nowadays. My favorite design was the hydra, who seemed 3D-like. They did a great job visualizing the characters and their designs, almost making us forget the fact they were, in fact, animated. Second things second: the music. At first glance, you would never know this is an adventure slash musical film. I really enjoyed the gospel singers and the songs snipped in from Hercules and Meg. They were nice to hear, and the gospel singers enhanced the stories by adding a new form of narration. Third things third: the plot. This is where the film falls apart, for me, because the writers obviously try to lean towards their initial audience. They stripped away some of the Greek mythology by trying to make it a family film, but they end up stripping too much away. There was some clever jokes packed in, especially dozens of pop- culture references, but none of them made up for the fact that they took too much away.
Bad things stop there. Hercules was a very fun film that doesn't take too much away from becoming a fraud. It packs in clever references to Greek mythology, packs in lush animation, and packs in a key item in animations: heart. I recommend for anybody wanting to see a film that can still be enjoyable albeit forgetting some of it's source material.
8/10.