TalahaseesLittleBrother
Joined Jul 2024
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings77
TalahaseesLittleBrother's rating
Reviews54
TalahaseesLittleBrother's rating
Deliverance
A worthy addition to the small collection of movies that define the genre that they inhabit and that set the benchmark for those that follow.
Objectively and when considered in context, Deliverance deserves its place as a cultural icon and the legacy it leaves. And like all iconic movies from decades ago, a lack of context does lead to some rather odd 'reviews' from IMDB users. Just check some of them out.
A review is objective, and is as such a derivative of a subjective opinion and is differentiated from subjectivity by the use of context and detail by means of critical analysis.
When viewed in context, Deliverance is a well written, directed, acted and technically superior example of a horror/thriller genre film made in the early 1970s especially when you consider the shocking nature of the central notorious - now iconic - scene. If course, viewed subjectively, over 50 years later in a world of fast cuts and cgi and short attention spans, Deliverance is a different beast to how it would be made and appear today. Objectively, a Deliverance made in 2025 might address the concerns of IMDB naysayers, but I'm not sure it could be a better film.
The rawness and dynamic nature of a real location and the lack of stuntmen in 1972 made Deliverance feel existentially dangerous and real. CGI and fast cuts and a Zimmer-esque score cannot replicate the way that Boorman's camera lingers a beat-too-long in order to unnerve the viewer. And watching the movie again today I was struck by how many movies have attempted to replicate the aesthetics of many of the shots in Deliverance; this does not happen to a bad movie.
Context - The Godfather was released the same year and many of the technical criticisms of Deliverance could equally be applied to this, one of the greatest movies ever made. But it was 53 years ago! King Kong, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, Psycho, Jaws and many other movies from decades ago would be technically different if made today, however which of them would be better? If your answer depends on if you like the movie or not, that kind of proves the subjectivity v objectivity argument.
Deliverance is a fine piece of quality, Nixon-era genre film-making and is definitely a film worth watching for the first time. But do so with caution and a certain amount of respect for the context of when and how it was made.
A worthy addition to the small collection of movies that define the genre that they inhabit and that set the benchmark for those that follow.
Objectively and when considered in context, Deliverance deserves its place as a cultural icon and the legacy it leaves. And like all iconic movies from decades ago, a lack of context does lead to some rather odd 'reviews' from IMDB users. Just check some of them out.
A review is objective, and is as such a derivative of a subjective opinion and is differentiated from subjectivity by the use of context and detail by means of critical analysis.
When viewed in context, Deliverance is a well written, directed, acted and technically superior example of a horror/thriller genre film made in the early 1970s especially when you consider the shocking nature of the central notorious - now iconic - scene. If course, viewed subjectively, over 50 years later in a world of fast cuts and cgi and short attention spans, Deliverance is a different beast to how it would be made and appear today. Objectively, a Deliverance made in 2025 might address the concerns of IMDB naysayers, but I'm not sure it could be a better film.
The rawness and dynamic nature of a real location and the lack of stuntmen in 1972 made Deliverance feel existentially dangerous and real. CGI and fast cuts and a Zimmer-esque score cannot replicate the way that Boorman's camera lingers a beat-too-long in order to unnerve the viewer. And watching the movie again today I was struck by how many movies have attempted to replicate the aesthetics of many of the shots in Deliverance; this does not happen to a bad movie.
Context - The Godfather was released the same year and many of the technical criticisms of Deliverance could equally be applied to this, one of the greatest movies ever made. But it was 53 years ago! King Kong, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, Psycho, Jaws and many other movies from decades ago would be technically different if made today, however which of them would be better? If your answer depends on if you like the movie or not, that kind of proves the subjectivity v objectivity argument.
Deliverance is a fine piece of quality, Nixon-era genre film-making and is definitely a film worth watching for the first time. But do so with caution and a certain amount of respect for the context of when and how it was made.
In an obvious case of fraudulent misrepresentation, faceless men meet to finalise plans for AI to replace all human artistic and creative influence on movie making.
In Captain America Brave New World, a superhero who is not a superhero who is not Captain America, does the minimal superhero things required in a vaguely superhero way that has been seen before. In a world which is neither brave nor new. Even a bored-looking Harrison Ford can't offer a shred of originality or quirk because - spoiler alert - he looks bored in every movie anyway these days.
There's a shield being thrown and superhero landings, talk of Avengers this and adamantiim that. Lots of acrobatic fighting with minimal sense of jeopardy.
CGI was perfected to push the boundaries of what could happen on screen, yet what we see here is Swiss-watch level mediocrity. All that noise and confusion is just so damned dull. Nothing interesting happens. Ever!
And so the bar is set low for future Marvel superhero movies. Fans will get what they need to continue being fans and nothing more.
Captain America Brave New World is not the worst film that you will see this year, but I feel as though this is damning the movie with faint praise.
In Captain America Brave New World, a superhero who is not a superhero who is not Captain America, does the minimal superhero things required in a vaguely superhero way that has been seen before. In a world which is neither brave nor new. Even a bored-looking Harrison Ford can't offer a shred of originality or quirk because - spoiler alert - he looks bored in every movie anyway these days.
There's a shield being thrown and superhero landings, talk of Avengers this and adamantiim that. Lots of acrobatic fighting with minimal sense of jeopardy.
CGI was perfected to push the boundaries of what could happen on screen, yet what we see here is Swiss-watch level mediocrity. All that noise and confusion is just so damned dull. Nothing interesting happens. Ever!
And so the bar is set low for future Marvel superhero movies. Fans will get what they need to continue being fans and nothing more.
Captain America Brave New World is not the worst film that you will see this year, but I feel as though this is damning the movie with faint praise.
Where to start?
Hard Home (2024) is an incoherent mess of an attempt at making a genre horror/thriller for the American market on a budget.
Firstly, let's put that to bed straight away; despite the terrible accents, the non-specific locations, the 'casual' dropping of state names and occasional costumes, this is not an American film. It just wants to be. And to anyone but the most casual viewer it is fooling no one.
Secondly, this is film-making by Xerox; from the writing to the editing and the direction, Hard Home just apes the movies it so desperately wants to be. There is no substance here; it is like a rough cocktail made from inferior, store brand alcohol.
Thirdly, flashbacks are no substitute for a good narrative structure; by constantly framing the story using flashbacks the effect is one that resembles the 'story-so-far' montage intros from a TV series.
Fourthly... oh why should I bother? Hard Home isn't worth the effort.
Please avoid this plastic turkey of a film.
Hard Home (2024) is an incoherent mess of an attempt at making a genre horror/thriller for the American market on a budget.
Firstly, let's put that to bed straight away; despite the terrible accents, the non-specific locations, the 'casual' dropping of state names and occasional costumes, this is not an American film. It just wants to be. And to anyone but the most casual viewer it is fooling no one.
Secondly, this is film-making by Xerox; from the writing to the editing and the direction, Hard Home just apes the movies it so desperately wants to be. There is no substance here; it is like a rough cocktail made from inferior, store brand alcohol.
Thirdly, flashbacks are no substitute for a good narrative structure; by constantly framing the story using flashbacks the effect is one that resembles the 'story-so-far' montage intros from a TV series.
Fourthly... oh why should I bother? Hard Home isn't worth the effort.
Please avoid this plastic turkey of a film.