It's like a battle royal team based type of movie which is heavily influenced by politics. Didn't really enjoyed it that much but it can be fine if anything else is really captivating your interest.

>>927 I have never seen that but it looks impressive. I think people these days are very stressed and modern production techniques are designed to appeal to highly-stressed people with ruined attention spans. To be able to watch longer, slower-paced films you need to be able to relax physically and mentally and I think lots of people can't do that, they are stuck in a stressed state that requires those drama-inducing techniques to keep them interested.

>>931 It's not even a long movie though (unlike Nicholas and Alexandra), barely two hours with lots of things happening. I think it's an aesthetic problem. I'm sure if some old great battle from the past could be recorded and shown to the people of today they would say it looks "cheap" or "aged badly" because it wouldn't be the CG shitfest they are used to. Our aesthetic sense is getting fucked. Those were incredible efforts , just only to mobilize thousands (more than 15000), it's like recluting a real army since you need them equiped and disciplined like one (and they were a real army in this case, mostly soviet soldiers including cavalry). But still, the budgets were a fraction of any big production of today. They are spending more money than ever in shit that can't resist any comparation with movies from 50 years ago. It's really sad.

>>931 >modern production techniques are designed to appeal to highly-stressed people with ruined attention spans That and a dumbed down plot and dialogue so the film can appeal to Chinese audiences.

I watched a couple of documentaries a few weeks ago. >Liniers, The Simple Lines of Things A documentary about an Argentinian artist called Liniers who is best known for his comic strip "Macanudo". I must confess I wasn't particularly excited about watching this movie --I like some of Liniers' work, but I find most of his comics a little lame--, but I ended up liking it. I enjoyed seeing the creative process behind Macanudo and how different Liniers' approach to comic strips is from other artists. Also, it was pretty interesting to see how much the director struggle to convince Liniers to allow her to make the movie. >The Mindscape of Alan Moore This movie is pretty much a very long interview with Alan Moore, the writer of Watchmen, V For Vendetta, From Hell and many other titles. Unlike other interviews where Moore is depicted as a grumpy and eccentric old man who hates everything, this documentary allow him to tell his story and go deeper into his personal philosophy. It was certainly interesting to hear him talk about how he came up with some of his best-know stories, but my favorite part was when he began to talk about his thought on magic, science and philosophy. I would have liked to see some other comic writers and even some other people heavily into occultism share their thoughts on Moore's works and views, but the documentary is pretty good as it is. >>927 I agree with you and the rest of the mages here, there's something very special about those classic period films. Not only are they more faithful to the historical event they are portraying, but they are also the fruit of the work of hundreds of really talented artisans and actors. The amount of coordinated effort required to film such complex scenes is just amazing.

You kind of know since the beginning how it's going to end up so not really a stellar movie but still somewhat enjoyed it.

Watched Béla Tarrr's Turin Horse. It's one of those movies where nothing happens, and it's a bit on the pretentious side of new wave, but I really liked it. It's a movie about the crushing monotony of life, an abused workhorse's refusal to live, the despoilment of earth, and the Apocalypse. A poor farmer and daughter pair living in the middle of nowhere are stuck in a perpetual windstorm, their workhorse (suggested to be the horse Nietzsche saw being whipped when he had his mental break) refuses drink and food, and their farmstead is visited by a few mysterious and ominous characters typical to eastern European playwriting. But mainly the film is about conveying through a sort of visual poetry the grinding and disappointing aspects of daily life. They dress, they undress, fetch water and light lamps, tend the fire, eat potatoes, and stare out the window. Almost no dialog is present, just a single haunting theme on repeat and the howling of the wind.

>>948 Interesting, it almost sounds like a movie that's meant to induce depression in the audience. It's like the plot of the film is life is shit, it has no meaning and then you die.

Not good as the original one but it was worth the time I spent on it.

>>976 I liked Unfriended a little more than the first one, in part because of the great ending. I found both films gave me such an eerie feeling, maybe because I spend so much time on the internet.

I watched a few recent horror movies. >Curse of Chucky It has its flaws but I enjoyed it. It was nice to see Chucky return to his horror roots and I like how the movie uses the 'uncanny valley' to inspire fear. However, I think the story gets dumber and dumber as it progresses. At first, the movie fools you into thinking it's a reboot, but then it connects with the rest of the series. Unfortunately, it does this very awkwardly, especially when Tiffany enters the picture. Also, I didn't like what they did with Charles Lee Ray's backstory. >The Conjuring I didn't expect anything out of this movie but I found it very interesting and entertaining. It's very well done and has some nice scenes. I think it went a little over the top at times, but it's just my opinion. >Annabelle This one was kind of bad, to be honest. The story is very simple and predictable, and the main characters are just plain boring. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the elevator scene and the part where the black demon sits at the bottom of the staircase. And here's a little fun fact: this movie was directed by the same director of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

>>1003 Annabelle was pretty bad, and can you believe it made $257 million. People are so desperate for horror films that even garbage makes a lot of money. The fact that the doll never got up by itself and moved around pissed me off so much. If you liked The Conjuring you'd probably like Insidious.

What spooky horror films is everyone going to be watching this October? I watched Session 9 last night, it was well shot but got a little confused towards the end. I think the John Cusack movie Identity is a better MPD themed horror film. I might re-watch John Carpenter's Vampires later on.

>>1041 I don't know, but I'm having some pressure to watch something at the end of the month, there's anything you particularly recommend? Years ago I watched like one horror movie every two days for a long time, so at some point it was difficult to find good stuff to watch. I always liked Vampires, even if it was never particularly appreciated in Carpenter's filmography, also the John Steakley novel was quite good too.

>>1042 >recommend >I watched like one horror movie every two days for a long time This could be a problem, you see it's hard for me to recommend the good stuff when you've already binge watched everything. Some of the old Vincent Price horror films are enjoyable, not so much scary but fun to watch none the less. I'd recommend The Masque of the Red Death, Witchfinder General and Diary of a Madman. I watched We Are Still Here a little while ago, it was pretty good.

>>1044 I watched more 70's-80's, particularly slashers (most of the usual long franchises, even the awful parts, it was hell of a ride), so it's not a bad recommendation at all. Also I remember hearing about The Masque of the Red Death in a podcast about the best plague and disease movies, so I think I will give it a chance.

Not a bad film, it was a bit long (my attention span usually starts to wane after two hours) but it kept me decently entertained the entire time. The movie shows just how quickly normies turn into depraved degenerates in a bunker situation. Like almost immediately they start acting out, which is exactly what I'd expect to happen.

I watched "It" (2017) with my two nieces a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, I had to watch the dubbed version because one of my nieces doesn't like to watch movies with subtitles. I haven't read the book but I remember enjoying the 1990 miniseries, so I was a little curious about this movie. To be honest, I don't have much to say about this new adaptation. I mean, it was a nice movie and I found Pennywise's new design interesting, but I'm having trouble remembering any memorable scene. I guess I could say that the relationship between the Losers work pretty well. I also think it was a good idea to give these character more personal fears instead of using classic movie monsters. In a way, that reminds me of A Nightmare on Elm Street. I prefer Tim Curry's take on Pennywise, but honestly, it's an unfair comparison. There aren't nearly enough scenes where Bill Skarsgård can showcase his acting skills. Come to think of it, most of the movies I've seen these last few weeks are just "fine" or "mediocre".

This was nice, while most things didn't make too much sense to me, you can see George C. Scott as the most vicious assassin and some amazing fire apocalypse at the end. It's the kind of movie you could easily miss because it doesn't have too much apreciation or good reviews. I watched it because some neros77 video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwh2WcHI0LI He has the skill to show 80's movies as a lot more cooler than they really were, but some of them have been really good discoveries. Next weekend we should watch some classic horror movies.

The new Borat isn't nearly as good as the first one but it's got some enjoyable parts. The Rudy Giuliani interview is fucking wild. Been a while since I saw it, but the first one seemed to be a satirization of the republican party as well as an "expose" (there's probably a more accurate term) of what they'd put up with (like talking openly about killing fags and such) and making comedy from that. The new one goes for more of a "Borat learns feminism" angle as well as moving away from the mockumentary format to a more narrative-driven format which I think is a lot less interesting regardless of the viewer's politics. I think that the Borat character is a lot more funny when he stays simple and the people he harasses are the punch line. Doesn't help that there are a lot fewer real people in it than the original, although the times that they do interact with real people they get a lot of mileage out of it, the parts where he's at republican rallies are the most like the original. The worst aspect is the girl who adds nothing to the film besides feminist points, which is a shame because she's a major part of the plot. I think it's funnier when the women of Kazakhstan aren't seen and all we know of them is what Borat says so he can get people shocked by making up the most ridiculous stuff. Whatever, the fat guy whose name I forget was a much better foil to Borat as far as I'm concerned but I guess he had to sit this one out. Also I don't really have a problem with it being anti-Trump, obviously the first one joked about the president a lot. But here it seems really fucking gay the way they go about it, especially in the intro. Rather than focusing on American conservatives it focuses a lot on the actual people in charge, which I find less funny personally. I think that the main reason it went the way that it did is obvious, it's meant to encourage Democrats to vote, and to be fair I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself. This election is a big deal to a lot of people and the real question is whether or not the Democrats can excite their people to actually vote, the Republican voter base seems a lot more stable for better or for worse. The movie is essentially a feature length Trump bashing ad, and I think it does that job well. I think that while the first one was something that would be funny to someone from most parts of the political spectrum this new one is something that at the very least isn't something that Trump guys would like. Also the part where they show the girl (who's supposed to be 15 in the movie) learning to masturbate, is fucking weird. Not that I think that girls shouldn't be learning about sex yet by that age or that I think it's evidence on its own that Sasha Baren Cohen is a pedo or even that I think you can't or shouldn't show that in a movie, it's just fucking weird I think that's where I realized all the feminism stuff wasn't leading to a joke but was rather the intended goal. I find it funny how Borat is still so recognizable even a decade and a half later that between movies he's become some sort of makeup/disguise expert just so he won't be immediately recognized.

>[AC] Adult Content >[MV] Mild Violence >[OC] OUTDATED CULTURAL DEPICTION So... that's a thing now. Apparently, people need to be warned that a movie set in the past actually depicts the past.

>>1143 >the rating system is gay In other news, water is wet.

I don't usually write about the movies I watch but this was really interesting, while I can't really say too much about the plot without spoilers. This is one of the few movies that have made me feel really good about my life choices. I was also surprised to see how it had good criticism considering it can easily be interpreted as a ferocious critic to (feminist) victimization. But I also read it as a critic of the "normal" way of life, how fucked up relations are (the quote "this is marriage" in the context of the movie was amazing) and how far some people will go just to keep living like that, worried about their status and what other people will think about them. It's a kinda devastating movie full of disgusting characters but somehow I found it really appropiate for wizards and wizard-like people. If something, I would say it made me feel relief.

Already seen a bunch of movies with the same plot but I still found it interesting and engaging. It helps maybe that I have a weak spot for this genre.

I've been on a traditional fantasy binge recently, seeing (mostly rewatching) the oldies of Jason and the Argonauts (1963), the Sinbad films (1958, 1973 & 1977), Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Destroyer (1984), The Dark Crystal (1982), Excalibur (1981), Dragonslayer (1981), Krull (1983), Masters of the Universe (1987), Ladyhawke (1985), Fire and Ice (1983), Wizards (1977), the LoTR animations (The Hobbit, 1977; RoTK, 1980; Bakshi's, 1978), Legend (1985), Dragonheart (1996), Scorpion King (1992), Eragon (2006), Beowulf (2007) and, of course, the LoTR trilogy, perhaps the cinematic epitome of fantasy, especially FoTR. I'd recommend all those movies to anyone who enjoys some good ol' high fantasy and sword and sorcery; Legend may be an outlier in that regard (reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth for some reason), as well as Jason's and Sinbad's due to their dated production (and being more of sword and sandal). I remain intent in watching more fantasy films, although I fear that the best of the genre is already seen, those being the more acclaimed and reputed ones after all. Who knows, maybe another gem awaits among forgotten 40s-50s-60s films, and I'd certainly appreciate any other recommendations. I take the opportunity to discharge my mind. Amidst the stillness of my current life, so many fantasy has me thinking that Don Quixote wasn't that mad after all. At this moment I would very much like to don armour and raise sword and learn spell and pursue an impossible quest, not because I'd believe it, certainly, but because I'd believe in it. In the blink of an eye, a sincere proclamation of CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM could turn the irrational into the real, and, in the world thus remade, I would be the only sane man left to reveal: BEHOLD, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW. Alas, a terrible spell of inertia has me, hiding cowardice, masquerading as prudence...

>>1493 Have you seen Black Angel (1980)?

>>1493 I can remember a couple of fantasy movies maybe you haven't watched. The two are often considered part of the barbarian fad of the 80's, though they really weren't. First one is The Beastmaster, I have a thing for it's director Don Coscarelli because even with low budgets and genre movies he had a really personal style I personally love. It came at the same time than Conan so it wasn't riding the fad but there's a lot of similarities and it was unfairly considered a cheap Conan copy. And the second is Conquest by Lucio Fulci. It's not a particularly great movie but it's so weird it's interesting to watch and it has the sense of atmosphere of the good Fulci works, also adds some greek/ancient world into the mix.

>>1495 I hadn't seen it, so thanks for the recommendation. I found it to be wholly pleasant, especially in its visuals, inspiring a certain mysticism. It seems a full-length version is in the making, but doesn't seem very promising in my opinion. >>1496 I hadn't seen either of them, although I had read about The Beastmaster somewhere. After seeing it I understand why some would consider it similar to Conan, but I agree with you in that it'd be unfair to consign it as a copy, much less a cheap one, for it has its own merits and its own glow, so to say, particularly because the hero -and his animal companions- give off a vastly different charm than Schwarzenegger's Conan. Very enjoyable, all in all, even if I thought it somewhat weakens towards the end. Ten minutes into Conquest, on the other hand, and it is already grittier and more visceral than most fantasy movies, which, given it is Fulci's, is quite understandable. The presentation (and questionable effects, even for the time) just scream cheap Italian flick, as does the music, but its atmosphere and good pacing kept me gripped fairly easily. Good characters too. Thanks for the recommendations.

>>1496 >The Beastmaster I use to watch the TV series many years ago. I remember really enjoying it.

I watched a couple of movies a few days ago. Since sometimes I forget what movies I’ve seen, I thought it would be a good idea to write my thoughts on them. >Judith of Bethulia (1914) In 1914, after filming more than 400 short movies, D. W. Griffith released his first feature film: Judith of Bethulia. The movie is about Judith, a widow who is forced to seduces and then kill Assyrian general Holofernes in order to save her city. From what I read, it’s based on the play of the same name by Thomas Bailey Aldrich. The story touches on patriotism and the tension between our personal desires and our obligations. A good example of these issues is the scene in which Judith, moments before cutting off Holofernes' head, is tempted to spare her new lover's life. Right at that moment, her mind is invaded by visions of her compatriots dying of thirst and hunger, which makes her change her mind and kill Holofernes (I think this part of the movie is also a good example of cross-cutting, but I’m not sure). Just for that, I find Judith very interesting as a character. She is a heroine forced to play with her own temptations without falling fully into them. Anyway, while I enjoyed the story, what really surprised me about this film was its ambitious technical aspects. You can see that a lot of effort and love was put into each set (Bethulia’s main street looks really impressive, especially when it’s full of extras) and costume. Likewise, the battle scenes are amazing for the time period. There’s something about them that really conveys the violence and chaos of war. The scene where an Assyrian warrior falls from a ladder and then he’s rescued by one of his fellow soldiers deserves special mention here. Finally, each shot is so meticulously composed and detailed that it almost feel like being in front of a series of living paintings, but I think that was something quite common back then, when movies were still heavily influenced by theater. However, this film also has few shots with unusual compositions and camera angles. A good example of this are the scenes that takes place inside Holofernes' tent, when Judith is trying to seduce him. In short, “Judith of Bethulia” is very interesting silent film. I can understand why it isn't mentioned very often when people talks about Griffith (his other films are more iconic), but that doesn’t mean that this one doesn’t deserve some merit. It doesn’t surprise me that it was one of the most expensive movies ever made at that time (it had a budget of $40,000). By the way, after watching the movie, I watched a documentary called “D.W. Griffith: The Father of Film”. I recommend it to anyone who's into cinema history.

>>2076 >Leprechaun 3 (1995) When I started to watch these movies, I thought they would be something similar to the “A Nightmare on Elm Street” movies. Unfortunately, I didn’t enjoy the first two movies. In a way, they had good ideas but the people behind them didn’t have enough money and talent to make them work. Luckily, I found the third movie very enjoyable. Without a doubt, it was a step in the right direction. Of course, I can’t deny that “Leprechaun 3” suffers from the same problems as its predecessor: most of the characters are too cartoonish for their own good and the movie isn’t scary at all, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. In fact, I’d even say that it’s very entertaining and has some creative and fun scenes. For instances, all the death sequences are memorable and have a monkey's paw effect that gives them an added irony. Speaking of the technical aspect of the movie, I’m a little surprised that this “Leprechaun 3” had a lower budget than his predecessors, because it looks a lot better than them. Its director, Brian Trenchard-Smith, really knew how to make the most of the money they had. The set are well made, the costumes are visually appealing and most of the special effects are good. My only criticism is that the second leprechaun’s make-up looks terrible in some scenes. As for the actors, almost all of them did a decent job with what they were given to work with, but I think Warwick Davis (The Leprechaun) and Lee Armstrong (Tammy) deserve special mention. Davis gives his role all he has and make all the Leprechaun’s one-liners work. In short, he’s a very charismatic actor. Lee Armstrong is a good actress too. She’s also lucky enough to have a few dramatic scenes where she gets to explore different emotions. That said, it’s a little uncomfortable to see her act as a bimbo when she’s under the spell of one of the wishes. On the other hand, there’s an actor who stands out for a completely different reason: John Gatins, who plays Scott, the hero of the story. The script needed a naive young man with a good heart, but his performance is so cartoonish and bizarre. Also, there’s something about his eyes that makes him look like a serial killer. In conclusion, “Leprechaun 3” is the first movie in the franchise I’ve actually enjoyed. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s fun and has some clever ideas, and that’s all I ask from a fantasy/horror movie. By the way, I apologize if I made any grammar or spelling mistakes. I still struggle a little with English.

>Mad God A surreal stop motion (with some live action inserts) horror film with no dialog. Mysterious figure descends into the underworld with a map and a briefcase of explosives. In my opinion the movie's good points are that it's visually stunning in many areas. There still is no substitute for real world analog effects and settings rendered in miniature. Most of the stop motion is quite well done too. Some of the live action inserts are so well blended with the stop motion I don't even notice the transition. Some of the film is just beautiful, and the rest is ugly but in such a way that one cant help but admire it's aesthetic qualities anyway. Most western films, even animated ones, rarely place such priority on beautiful visuals. So it is quite good to see something where each frame is pleasing to behold. My complaints: It doesn't feel entirely cohesive. The film was made and remade piecemeal over a long period of 30 year, because of this it seems to me that there's a certain looseness and slight shift between the parts that were made earlier and the ones that are made later. A more minor gripe is that is some of the live action insert sequences feel jarring and that in scenes that have CGI/composite parts it isn't always well blended into the otherwise immaculate and richly detailed setwork. My biggest peeve though would be that where story and symbolism are concerned it often feels scattershot and lacking in refinement. I like the concepts, symbolism, and feelings, I think they have real potential, but the execution felt lacking. Some scenes and their visuals seem too out of place (one scene has a UFO). Other scenes seem to on the nose (some of the early scenes have a distinct scatological bent, but come off as so eager to impart disgust it actually detracts from the otherwise slow build of horror). Overall I enjoyed Mad God. It is another film in a small but influential tradition of surreal horror stop-motion. If you have interest in such things I suggest you check it out. It's a shame that this isn't the first film of a newcomer, so that one could look to the future and hope for more films going forward each evolving in sophistication.

>>2083 Though it can be too artsy for my taste for my taste, this interests me a lot. Makes me feel a lot better about the future of humanity to see the old art forms are not completely abandoned and not all has to be an sterile CG desert; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-TJm7HkzkQ I found weird that while being a big name in special effects the director only made one long feature film before, and that film being Starship Troopers 2.

>>2083 >>2087 Thank you for reminding me of that movie. I've been interested in it since I read about the project a couple of years ago. I'll try to find a way to watch it as soon as possible. I also agree with your opinion on the current state of the art in visual effects. There's something really appealing and even "magical" about practical effects and a well-thought out stage design. It's a shame that most directors directors are not interested in giving these techniques a chance. On the other hand, it's impressive what you can do with CGI these days. For instance, that animated short your linked to was made with Blender, but it really nails that stop motion feel.

>>2091 For what it's worth I downloaded it from here https://mixdrop.co/f/xo7jomr6aqpppn , though the quality wasn't great (720x400), there might be better quality releases somewhere. >On the other hand, it's impressive what you can do with CGI these days It certainly can be, sadly it usually isn't used to it's full potential. My pet theory is that it's a problem of CGI giving too much freedom. The limitations of a medium can be the catalyst for growth. So many historical styles are a product of the give and take interplay between the artist, his tools, and his medium. With digital mediums like CGI there's no collaboration with the world, just a boundless possibility that all but the most visionary can get hopelessly lost in. So all too often it's just shoved into things half-baked by people who have no idea how it works as a medium.

>>2091 Damn, I feel dumb to have posted a work that was actually CG to criticize CG, I didn't know it was (still great though). I should say my problem with CG is more about it's prevalent use and how other forms of animation and art in general have been abandoned. This awful idea that CG makes everything else obsolete, and the often aesthetic lazy use of it. I also love puppetry and it was very nice so see a little return of it with Dark Crystal, also Thunderbolt Fantasy is one of the best things ever.

>>2093 Thank you so much for that download link. I'm not as good at finding stuff online as I used to be, so if I don't find a better version somewhere, I'll use your link. >My pet theory is that it's a problem of CGI giving too much freedom. The limitations of a medium can be the catalyst for growth I can see what you mean. Back in the day when CGI was still new in film making, most directors used it very sparingly. It was just another special effect technique that had to be used with care. However, now it seems to be the answer to everything, at least according to Hollywood. In fact, it's not unusual to see one or more entirely computer generated scenes in a modern live-action movie. >>2095 >Damn, I feel dumb to have posted a work that was actually CG to criticize CG, I didn't know it was (still great though) Don't worry. The first time I watched it, I thought it was an actual stop motion short too. It's really well done. Now that you mentioned it, I think I hate the overuse of CGI in animation more than in live-action. It's true that there are a few recent animated movies with great art direction and character design, but most CGI movies look very samey, which is a real shame, because you can do anything with animation. By the way, I see many people talking about Thunderbolt Fantasy online. I should definitely watch it.

I forgot how incredibly low-budget "Lucy, Daughter of the Devil" was, but it has loads of soul. You can really feel the fun had by the crew. It completely out-classes the bitter and angry "Little Demon", whose vulgarity reeks of a desperate network executive's mandate.

I've been watching a few episodes of Lexx recently. It's a very strange show, it reminds me a little bit of Farscape if you're into that.

>>2278 Never heard of it for some reason, makes me think a little of Farscape, which I should watch one of these days. There were many space sci-fi shows in those years, and some were very innovative or just plan weird. Yesterday, like OP some years ago, I finished Babylon 5. Actually it was a show I already watched as a teen long time ago, and I loved deeply. Surprisingly it was even better than I remembered, so I could feel nostalgic and amazed by the quality at the same time.

I watched Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio with my family a couple of days ago. Honestly, the only reason I wanted to see this movie was for its artistic side, and in that regard, I was not disappointed. The film is visually beautiful and has a very appealing handcrafted feel to it. As for the story, I couldn't help but feel that it was overloaded with disparate situations and subplots. It's true that all of those scenes made sense within the story and were properly intertwined, but I still felt the film was too fast paced for its own good. In addition to this, I was not convinced by what they did with the character of Pinocchio. I appreciated that they introduced him as a sort of abomination (in fact, his relationship with Geppetto starts out very much like the one Dr. Frankenstein has with his creation) and I enjoyed his transformation throughout the film, but the character is just annoying. I was going to say that I didn't like any of the songs from the movie, but I watched it dubbed. Now I'm listening to some of those songs in their original language and I must admit that they are enjoyable. The only part of the film that I really didn't like was the one where Mussolini appears. I don't really care about this historical figure, but I didn't get the joke about his stature and the song Pinocchio sang in front of him was terribly stupid. Granted, the one line of dialogue that Mussolini has in the film made me laugh. Lastly, I guess I liked the final message of the movie (don't look for perfection or live in the past, just try to find a way to make things work with what you have). It's a good movie, although I don't think my family liked it.

I already watched this movie something like 10 years ago or maybe less I don't remember exactly but good movie overall despite the plot being nothing too crazy. I enjoyed the bleak, grey and depressing vibe to it and the acting felt very real. It left me with a sort of melancholic feeling, almost yearning for a series of events that I never experience and hope for the future of the family that Ree now has to carry on. Weird feeling if you ask me but I guess the acting was that good. Highly recommended if you're in the mood of watching something raw and sad. Fun fact: the role that Jennifer Lawrence had to take up in this movie is pretty much the same in the next movie that she did after this one which is The Hunger Games.

Do you know of any movies that would help me cope with cancer (not my own)?

>>2304 It's A Wonderful Life. It's an excellent, uplifting movie. Also Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

>>2303 >Jennifer Lawrence I won't watch anything with this narcissistic cumslut jewish fuckdoll. Sorry.

>>2323 Fair enough. By the words you chose I guess she don't do as good in IRL as she does in movies. I don't really know much about her except the movies she starred in.

Watched them all 4. I know there is a new one that just released for but for now I think what I watched is enough for the franchise. Overall a good story. Didn't read the books but the movie did its story telling right in my opinion. Futuristic dystopian world always catches my interest. The love story between the characters is lame but I guess this part is maybe directed more to the younger people than old slobs like me. The finale is a bit disappointing, I was hoping for something more but if you asked me what's this "more" I couldn't answer you.

>>2341 To be honest, I never felt any interest in that franchise, even though it seems to have been very successful in its time. I think it never caught my attention because I thought it was aimed to teenagers with all that entails (unnecessary romance and drama). However, I can't deny that I really like their art direction (especially the contrast between the wealthy classes and the players) based on the few images I've seen. Also, I like dystopian movies too, so maybe I should give it a try.

>>2342 >I thought it was aimed to teenagers >I like dystopian movies It seems like we have something in common. I suggest you to watch them, you might not regret it.

Rewatched it last week. Not too much to be told honestly. It was meh the first time I watched it and it's meh now. The only thing I appreciated are the dialogues which are often in native language, namely french and german.