Posted 28 June 2011 - 07:01 AM
Two reviews:
1. Battle: Los Angeles. Too horrible to be bad, not horrible enough to be funny. It has gloriously reached the rank of terrible movie that you have no reason to see, ever. Special effects? Nah, they are shit too. 2 out of 10. Awful movie.
2. Winter's Bone. I'm conflicted. I watched it straight through. I enjoyed it. I was engaged by it. I was brought in by its story line. It is a very nice and concise piece of film, which I think hits every piece of my cinema hit-list. Yet, it builds slowly. Never really explains what is going on, but makes up for it. How? Great characters, despite their limited view. Great setting and plot, which Amph I think has nailed as being on point. Great acting, frankly, really sets this movie apart. Without the acting it'd be a terrible movie, but they do a great job of conveying the atmosphere without needing it to be described. Despite how much I enjoy those aspects, the plot didn't ring enough, despite how true it might be, for me to really care. Yes, that plot is probably very true, but.... it missed out somewhere. The Uncle/Niece relationship is by far the best part of the movie for me. I'm going to throw an 8.0 out of 10 at it, but I can see how others could easily put a 6.5 or 9.5 on it.
The acting is probably the best part of the film.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....