JUST

What went wrong?

Dennis Lehane is usually so reliable.

Is it worth 12.50 usd?

was pretty good tbqh

> he doesn't know that ((they)) have been giving Affleck movies lower ratings than normal since BvS

whew

>Irish female co-lead
>black

what in the heck did they mean by this?

and this is coming from a Zoe fan too

Affleck films like Argo, town, and gone baby gone get all good reviews now all of a sudden they're against him.

Quit being a little bitch

Hi Casey, early congrats on the oscars for Manchester.

Its garbage
he used the same smoke shows again but this time it fell flat on its face

Its a retread of Public Enemies

it's called a trend, this usually happens when they turn on an actor.

You honestly going to tell me The Accountant should be rated that low? Or BvS was worse than fuckin weekend at bernies?

thx. 4 correcting :^)

wait, is this true?

so pretty good then? hmm interesting, might see now.

>12.50
do Americans really pay this?

>Dennis Lehane is usually so reliable.

literally fuckin whew, he's a good writer

>all of a sudden
You mean with this specific film? What are you saying, that they have to love all his shit because they liked a few in the past?

I saw a screening of it, I liked it a lot. Really the worst part is the editing, which makes some questionable choices and lacks consistency through the first half, but I think the biggest detractor from this movie for critics is that goes against what their preconceived notions are about a gangster movie, and it meanders in the middle which, for some reason, people dont like in movies anymore. I personally like it when a movie takes its time.


is wrong, its not a re-tread of Public Enemies really. Its the story of a man's life as he experiences gangster tropes/things. Things are set up in the beginning of the movie that dont have a thematic pay off until the very end, or near the end, and I feel like that might also throw critics off since if you dont remember a set up or connect it to a pay off later, it can seem like there are just a lot of loose ends and bits that dont go anywhere.


I've described it to friends as the Forest Gump of gangster movies-- albeit not as "tight" as Forest Gump.

Appreciate brah, nice to have non-meme responses every once in a while.

you any chance Aussie?

related pleb filter

Gone Baby Gone
or
Mystic River

Easy. The one with the actual good actor as lead.

No problem, its definitely a movie worth seeing, and I really hate the current zeitgeist of critics-- its like no one has any original thoughts anymore and they all check with each other to make sure they have the "right" opinion.


And nah, I live in LA, I just go to screenings because I'm an editor for a Hollywood/film journalism outlet. Luckily we don't really do reviews so I don't have to be part of that whole mess of parrots.

The movie has feminism and interracial breeding why wouldn't the JewsIshmael illuminati like it?

is Mystic River good? I've only seen Gone Baby Gone and I really liked it.

Mystic River would have been great with a good cast.

Thats why they did it again and it WAS great with Gone Baby Gone (effectively)

critics are worthless these days, literally anyone can be a film critic and none even tries to say anything with film criticism anymore, its just personal blog shit.


They don't like it because its a movie that actually takes some brain power and has some jagged bits and coloring outside the lines.

oh okay, I might check it out then because I like to see that kind of evolution of stories. Thanks for the reply.

Mystic river had a great cast what are you talking about brosephine

40 year old Affleck cast himself in a role that should have gone to someone 20 years younger, WB probably fucked him over and cut the movie down to exactly 2 hours (not counting credits), he was going through marriage troubles while writing it so that probably affected the quality of the script.

He worked on the script for over a year which usually does not give great results, quite the opposite. It means you have no idea WTF you're really doing. Obviously that doesn't mean he should have written it in 6 weeks like David Ayer did Suicide Squad, but he should have written it much faster than he did.

>brosephine

I like that, I might steal it

so you havent actually seen the movie then and are just spouting shit out your ass?

Come on, you're better than this. Ferris Beuler's Day Off was written in a week and was great, Deadpool had a script that was constantly being tweaked and changed for years and years and years and was great.

Roepers usually pretty reliable and he says the ending is enough to ruin the movie. Would you disagree?

>I think the biggest detractor from this movie for critics is that goes against what their preconceived notions are about a gangster movie

Iin what world to critics hate a movie for being original, or slow, or plays with genre convention? You're making a really dumb strawman

Mystic River is completely mediocre like every Eastwood film

I would, the ending is one of the things thats thematically set up in the beginning (though it does bring the theme back quiet a bit, though its not obvious). Its a pretty subtle pay off and requires some recollection. I saw the movie with my dad and there were lines and scenes I had to remind him of that connected to the ending and why it made sense.

>Sean Penn
>good

take all my whews

People usually initially hate things if it goes against their pre-concieved notions of how it should work.


Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, when it initially released, was panned because the story went so against the grain of what was considered "good" story telling at the time.
Not to make this a BvS conversation, but regardless of what you thought of it, one of the biggest complaints is that it wasn't fun or light, because thats what critics (read: anyone who has a blog) expected and thought a superhero film SHOULD be.
Even look in other fields, like Van Gogh, who received no acclaim in his time because everyone thought his art was bad. It wasnt until after his death people started to approach it with a more open mind and really examine and look at the merits it had. Because it went against the trends considered "good" at the time it was considered bad.
It works in reverse too, where as something might have been a "good" technique in the past it cant become outdated.

it's great

It's funny cause I can actually picture him posting on Sup Forums and Sup Forums

2001 is easily the most abstract film ever made by a major studio, it's not the norm at all and you cannot with a straight face compare it's reception to a Ben Affleck gangster flick

You're making the mistake of thinking all critics are fanboy bloggers, ignoring the whole world of intelligent, serious criticism that praises artistic innovation.

and you arent actually addressing my point at all, and I wasn't comparing them as movies, but using it as an example to highlight my point you idiot. And I personally believe most critics these days are trash, since its a field that is easier to break into than ever. Also if you look at the thread topic, its about Rotten Tomatoes, which does indeed count all of those fanboy bloggers in its score.

>2001 is easily the most abstract film ever made by a major studio

Its really not that abstract except the beginning and ending. You are just moving goal posts like a coward.

I just wish Ben would direct his brother again. That's what I want

But you're comparing their receptions, which I don't think is reasonable considering how wildly different they are. And 2001 was not panned, thats a myth only repeated to disparage critics. It had a mixed reception because it is a weird, unconventional film that nobody was prepared for in 67. To say that critics don't like movies that aren't formula is so inane. You have to cherrypick one outlier example from 50 years ago and one dumbed down argument against a widely derided from a recent blockbuster to support it, which makes me think you don't have a clue what you're talking about

My point was that I haven't seen any good critics praising this film for it's supposedly unconventional structure either. It seems to have a pretty mediocre reception from everyone, from blogger movie dorks to respected career critics.

That's not what moving goalposts means numbnuts.

>But you're comparing their receptions

No I'm not, stop being so fucking dumb. You said that in no world do critics not hate things that ago against expectation. And I used that as an example to prove you wrong. Just like I wasn't comparing Live By Night to BvS or Van Gogh either you fucking idiot, just using it illustrate a point. You can't even follow the conversation you started, which PROVES you don't know what you're talking about.


And I never said it has unconventional structure, it just goes against what someone thinks when they think of a gangster movie.


God, you are one dumb fuck.

>nobody was prepared for in 67
>received mixed reception

make up your mind you idiot. And you did move goal posts, by going from "NO ONE EVER HATES THINGS BECAUSE THEY GO AGAINST EXPECTATIONS" to "WELL 2001 DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE REASONS"


neck yourself.

>all this back pedalling

>still not arguing the point
>b-but the one e-example you used was wrong!