4 reviews
- classiccountrymusicwiki
- Jul 26, 2015
- Permalink
I loved this movie! But I *strongly* recommend the Director's cut, which is the full 128 minutes. They cut out a lot of stuff for the theatrical release, but every bit of it was key to the story, and totally relevant to the plot.
I will freely admit that the actors lay it on a little thick in places, but it all works out in the end.
The humor is, understandably, a bit dry, but ultimately I think that's exactly what the audience is hoping for, so it works well.
Warning: The NR rating is completely justified; there is stripping involved, but (sadly) most of it happens off-camera.
I had a feeling of what the 'big reveal was going to be, long before the ultimate un-masking, but it was a satisfying finish nonetheless.
I will freely admit that the actors lay it on a little thick in places, but it all works out in the end.
The humor is, understandably, a bit dry, but ultimately I think that's exactly what the audience is hoping for, so it works well.
Warning: The NR rating is completely justified; there is stripping involved, but (sadly) most of it happens off-camera.
I had a feeling of what the 'big reveal was going to be, long before the ultimate un-masking, but it was a satisfying finish nonetheless.
- stuartk-59719
- May 15, 2016
- Permalink
This movie has such a high rating because people rate it a 10 thinking its the quintessential 10/10 movie. I say different! I say this is the quintessential 5/10 movie, mostly due to my rating system.
I use a rating system from 0 to 10. I consider a 5 average, and use it as my baseline. There are two types of 5/10 movies for me: something completely average or a totally mixed bag where the good aspects about equally cancel out the bad. The latter is easy enough to understand. Paint Drying is the former. A film's achievements will raise the score and any flaws or missed opportunities to objectively improve the film will lower it. A film can be technically perfect with no flaws on the filmmaking level but if nothing noteworthy is done with the premise, characters, or presentation of said premise and characters, I'd give it a 5 since nothing was done with those tools. If you make a film called Paint Drying where the camera is turned on right after a fresh coat of paint is applied to a wall and lasts 90 minutes, the only way you could technically screw it up is if for some reason the camera wasn't pointed directly at the wall and it wasn't 90 minutes. While the movie technically didn't do anything wrong, I'd still give it a 5/10 since it didn't do anything clever or noteworthy with the idea. A more conventional example to illustrate this concept would be the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under; it has beautiful animation and there's nothing wrong with it on a technical level, but the story, characters, and tropes are largely standard and recycled. Congratulations! You made a standard, passable film that didn't really break any new ground!
Just because the director's vision was completely satisfied and they made the movie they wanted to in the exact way they wanted to, that doesn't automatically make it a 10/10 movie. I could say "I'm going to make a terrible no-budget indie slasher flick for $100 that isn't self-aware in the least" and even if I made the movie I set out to make, that doesn't automatically mean its a great movie. That would actually be a pretty terrible movie.
I use a rating system from 0 to 10. I consider a 5 average, and use it as my baseline. There are two types of 5/10 movies for me: something completely average or a totally mixed bag where the good aspects about equally cancel out the bad. The latter is easy enough to understand. Paint Drying is the former. A film's achievements will raise the score and any flaws or missed opportunities to objectively improve the film will lower it. A film can be technically perfect with no flaws on the filmmaking level but if nothing noteworthy is done with the premise, characters, or presentation of said premise and characters, I'd give it a 5 since nothing was done with those tools. If you make a film called Paint Drying where the camera is turned on right after a fresh coat of paint is applied to a wall and lasts 90 minutes, the only way you could technically screw it up is if for some reason the camera wasn't pointed directly at the wall and it wasn't 90 minutes. While the movie technically didn't do anything wrong, I'd still give it a 5/10 since it didn't do anything clever or noteworthy with the idea. A more conventional example to illustrate this concept would be the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under; it has beautiful animation and there's nothing wrong with it on a technical level, but the story, characters, and tropes are largely standard and recycled. Congratulations! You made a standard, passable film that didn't really break any new ground!
Just because the director's vision was completely satisfied and they made the movie they wanted to in the exact way they wanted to, that doesn't automatically make it a 10/10 movie. I could say "I'm going to make a terrible no-budget indie slasher flick for $100 that isn't self-aware in the least" and even if I made the movie I set out to make, that doesn't automatically mean its a great movie. That would actually be a pretty terrible movie.