Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Movies with the most beautiful cinematography, art-direction and over-all use of colors and camera composition. Also the most unique looking films. All the movies are good, so there isn't a film I thought looked good, but didn't like. But there isn't something like The Extermintaing Angel, while I think it's one of the best movies ever made, it's nothing special in it's cinematography department. So the movie has to be good, but mainly here's the movie that are visually beautiful. Not beautiful by their story-telling or characters, only visually. Personal preference, in some kind of order.
Before commenting, please read: If there is a film that should be on this list in your opinion, chances are I haven't seen that film or it's in the honorable mentions below. So no more "Why isn't this and this movie here?" comments, maybe I haven't seen it, or maybe I don't think it's one of the most beautiful movies ever. But *beep* it, you can suggest films for me, just check the honorable mentions before doing that. Remember, this is a subjective list, not a objective. Oh yeah, also I don't have a Facebook account, so I can't reply. Sorry about that.
Honorable mentions: Sunshine I Killed My Mother The Treasure of Sierra Madre Leaving Las Vegas The Maltese Falcon The 400 Blow Blue Velvet Collateral Red Shoes La Grande Illusion Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World Fantasia (I'm not a huge Disney fan, but this is a beautiful film) 12 Years a Slave Her Naked Lunch Frances Ha Inside Llewyn Davis After Hours (the Scorsese film) Inherent Vice La Notte Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior Blade Runner Mommy (Xavier Dolan) It Follows Persepolis Manhattan The Revenant Double Life of Veronique
Criteria: 2 films minimum, only 2 films if I gave either a 10 or a 9 to both films.
While I will always be true on these lists, I don't pretend to like a film because people have said it's a masterpiece or something. But, I will try to put more "interesting" films on here. Hopefully, films that you haven't seen. And will kinda avoid the "mainstream" films. And if you think I'm a "hipster" for liking so many "art" films, I will assure you, I'm not a hipster. And I don't get why people hate "art" films. Why is art a bad word nowadays? Art film only means it's deeper than your avarage mainstream action blockbuster. And a maybe a bit slower paced.
I'm sorry but I decide to put some films together, like with Annie Hall and Manhattan and Coppola's '70s movies, I put one film representing a few films. I hope you don't feel angry, but I just can't put Coppola's '70s movies in order, because they are so equally brilliant.
And, I'M SORRY FOR ALL THE SPELLING MISTAKES.
Recently added: Mommy (nr. 95) Amour (nr. 58) Cache (nr. 77) Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (nr. 90) The Great Beauty (nr. 30)
Also, since he did it, check out my amigo's lists: Here
SORRY FOR ALL THE SPELLING MISTAKES!
I would put something like "Avatar" in here, but people would just hate me and besides their more overrated then actually bad.
Why I made this list is because I love ranting. I love being in that "zone" where I get so angry about a film, so think of this list as a writing practice. I'm trying to improve my writing (I'm an amateur writer), so I thought ranting angrily about bad films might help. I trying to be funny as well on this list, so if you do like some of these films (God help you) remember that this list is mostly comedic. So don't feel too bad if you masturbated to 1# Cheerleader Camp.
I have decided to expand this list, since I love ranting so much.
And I know this list mostly has film-noirs and crime films, but those are just so cool!
I'm very ashamed of this list. A lot of these movies are classics, but for some reason I haven't seen them.
Recomend the next movie I should watch. Or recomend more movies to the list.
Btw, Solaris was on this list and I did not watch it fully. I watched around 50 minutes and I found it quite boring, not bad at all, just not for me..
The Last Exorcism Part II (2013)
I didn't see the first one, so maybe that will explain this review...
This is so fcking terrible, I think a demon possession would be more fun. At least, THAT would be scary. This is going to be a sort review, since I ave barely anything to say about this forgettable, generic, insanely badly written, piece of sh*t movie. Only good thing about this is Ashley Bell. She actually gives a good performance. It's nuanced, but still powerful. Her character isn't very easy to play (or, it's not easy to play it well), but she does. Creating a sympathetic character, but also very creepy. But, by far the worst thing in this movie is the writing and/or editing. I have no idea what happened, it seems like someone either ripped off 10 pages every 2 pages or a retarded monkey edited this. Either or wouldn't surprise me! Or the retarded monkey probably would, but only by a little. Anyway, it doesn't seem like a story. Stuff just kinda happen, and your suppose to make sense out of it. New people just appear, Bell's character suddenly has a job (with no transition), she suddenly on a date with a creepy guy, and she apparently has a lot of friends (?)... They skip most important things and then decide to show us her cleaning a hotel room where NOTHING happens. I'm not saying they should use expositionary dialog or anything like that ('cause that's Nolan's job!), but at least explain somehow! It just really turned me off. They tried a different tone than most horror movies, and I like the effort, but it simply didn't work. Next time, shows us the important things, then maybe I could give a sh*t...
Hollywood Ending (2002)
Pretty entertaining, but incredibly lazy
Let me start off by saying, I love Woody Allen. I know a lot of people hate him (mainly because they haven't seen his movies and hate him because of the scandal), but I consider the man a comedy genius. If this was the first Allen film you watched, you would say that my statement is complete bullshit. And I wouldn't blame you. But anyway, the reason why I gave the film 5/10 instead of anything lower, is mainly because I found it an entertaining comedy. Not particularly funny or creative or new or "good", but entertaining at least. If nothing else, it's fascinating to watch how not creative and lazy it is. The "director-is- blind" gimmick is SO stretched out to the point where it becomes very, very annoying and insanely repetitive. There's a decent joke (or an effort on making a joke) that can work, but the over-all plot and characters are not interesting. The concept of the director being blind and trying to keep it secret is a decent scenario IF you have interesting characters. But, this hasn't. So most jokes fall flat, since it should be character comedy, but without the characters. It's like trying to make an omelet without eggs. The plot structure is horrible written, he goes blind and for the next 40 minutes he's going to struggle at set and... that's about it. Then, they realize the film is sh*t, other badly written sub-plots appear (and never get a satisfying conclusion), random sh*t happens and we get a good old fashioned (but boring!) Hollywood ending (pun intended). The problem is... MOST OF TE FILM IS THE SAME! About 40-45 minutes it's just him trying to hide his blindness and... Oh wait, AND NOTHING ELSE! It gets old and tired and oh so repetitive and dumb... It's a classic case of badly written comedy, but with SOME wit.
But I do want to stress that's it's not a "bad" film. It's actually, terrible. Allen's character is so unbelievable self-indulgent I wanted to puke. Oh, HE'S the cliché difficult, artsy and eccentric director? Oh come on! Yeah, he's eccentric, but he isn't known for being difficult (for God's sake, he releases one film a year!) and I wouldn't call is films artsy (genius maybe, but not artsy PS. I hate using that word "artsy"). It's just Allen being self-indulgent and kind of jealous of directors who have that kind of reputation. Other actors were... alright, i guess.. Tea Leoni was good, she's just a very good comedic actress. Others were forgettable to say the least.
It's pretty much a terrible film, but at least I had some fun watching it, since it was entertaining and interesting to see how Allen can f*ck up an already lazy idea.
Only God Forgives (2013)
I love this, however it's not really "good"...
There are a lot of things about Only God Forgives that are great and wonderful, but there is a a lot of things wrong in this film. Every good thing about OGF, it has at least one bad thing to balance it. Visually it's wonderful, but the story is SO thin. The surreal world that Wiending Refn creates works so well, the "plot" is too confusing. Characters are written interestingly (Gosling wants to fight God, his mother is the devil, the cop is God), but Gosling doesn't "act, he just stares. Soundtrack and editing is wonderful, but those don't make a great film. The symbolism is wonderful, or is it too heavy handed and confused?
I was fcking hyped for this film, before it even came out. When it did come out and it received such a mixed reception, my hyped grew even more. It was either people completely, absolutely hated this film, or the absolutely adored it. I, of course, had to see it, just to find out what did I think. And yes, I loved Drive. When I saw it, I didn't really know what to think about it. It was so weird and unique, like a puzzle. I have to confess, even though I love to analyze films and study meanings, I decided to see Chris Stuckmann's Youtube video "Only God Forgives explained". A great video, btw. After watching it, and re-watching most of the film, I liked it more. I should see it again, but I have too many films on my watch-list, so I don't know... While I love that Refn took so many daring risks and made the film he wanted to make, I still this a bit (understatement, but nevertheless) self-indulgent and "pretentious". Now, I hate using the word pretentious, IMO, it's over-used word that people use so wrong. What pretentious mean is, that (in case of film) the film is thinking it's more important, intellectual, deep etc. than it actually is. So something like 2001, isn't pretentious, since clearly it has a meaning. People use pretentious when the film was slow paced and/or they didn't "get" the film. I thought OGF is just a bit, only a little bit, pretentious. In the end of the day, it was style over substance, but it had substance as well. It's a film about many things, but it never really delves into those things. Some ideas, like the hinted incest between Gosling and his mother, is played out so well, very subtle and it works. Also I love the surreal dream/fantasy sequences that Gosling has. It's a study of guilt, anger, past, family, manipulation and, in some bizarre way, love. And I like that Refn took the visual route, rather than the verbal. The characters don't have intense discussions about the events of the film, he shows the emotions and feelings through expressions and visuals.
The acting is... Hmm.. Gosling is.. cool...? I guess.. Well, the guy who plays the cop/God he's fcking great, he's a supernatural being and a total badass. Kristen Scott Thomas (was that her name? I'm too lazy to check it out) is alright. Not amazing, but she handled okay. Okay, so Gosling isn't really acting, instead he just stares... Awkwardly and looooooooong. And was Julian (Gosling) and his mom suffering some kind of neck injury? They were just so damn slow, or maybe they have horrible reaction time. Anyway! In Drive Gosling pretty much stares as well, but it for some reason worked. I don't have a huge problem with Refn (possibly) sexual fetish for silent and slow moving protagonists. He does create a surreal world where a character like Julian could exist.
Visually great, love how daring it was, the themes are addressed subtle, but effectively and the acting is 50/50. All in all, it's definitely not perfect, but the idea of man (and not the devil) wanting fight God is wonderful. It's not for everyone, but if you like Jorodowsky, you will probably enjoy this one, as did I.
Bland and stupid, but not totally horrible, I guess...
When I heard that the guy who wrote Buried wrote this, I wasn't really excited. I thought Buried was a very lame, boring, kinda intense, kinda clever, but a cheap and too simplistic. I do respect the movie simply because, it did keep me interest for a long time, so I naturally expected that this movie will do. Well, it was a lazy, boring, useless and over-all very idiotic script. I don't mind a horror film that has horribly acting, over-the-top silly plot, bad effects etc. that much, I find it amusing. But even though a horror film would have those things, to me, the idea and passion behind it counts the most. What was the idea for it? For example: Long Weekend (re-make) sounds like a good idea, but the film is sh*t. But I kinda like it just for the idea is kinda original. I like a horror film that has courage, has balls to do something different. Sadly, ATM doesn't do anything I haven't seen in a million other "bad" horror movies. Only thing that this movie does that I haven't is that it doesn't explain anything in the end, therefor, being completely pointless, stupid and has lost my interest to even thin about it. The whole movie is building up to who is this guy and in the end, it doesn't give us nothing, is simply, stupid. If your building up to something then, show us what we have waiting to see. It's like if Se7en would have ended before John Doe got there. Also, characters are idiots, as always. I'm not going to complain about their idiotic behavior (like, WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN FOR THE CAR, WHEN HE WASN'T EVEN NEAR THE FCKING CAR!!!!!), because I would be repeating myself.
This isn't the worst film I have seen, because: the acting was okay across the board, when they start to think who might this be was interesting (again, would have been much better if would have known) and... that's it. Those are the only things that are good about this film. Why I hate this film so much is because it's so old and tired. It's horror at it's most boring and pointless. The film-makers didn't care about making a film, there is no passion in this movie, no sign that this is alive. I see a dead film.
The Frozen (2012)
It's actually pretty decent.
I thought this is going to be a generic, boring film that I have seen hundreds of times. But, it was actually pretty good. Not amazing or anything, but a lot better what I expected. The problem I had was that it was a bit boring at times and some, kinda dumb moments. Also typical stuff like the characters are bland and not interesting and I'm not a huge fan of this kind of story. It's not a "story" it's a situation, and to me that's kinda lame-ish. I mean, some effort on putting a story. The Descent could have been a "situation" movie, but instead, the writer actually wrote a story with real characters. BTW, The Descent was pretty good IMO. Anyway, that's my only real problem though... The actors did a decent job, not amazing but were likable, if a bit boring at times. Still, they had some good lines and funny moments were believable enough. Also I love that there is no real villain in the movie. I mean the wolfs, I guess are the villains, but that would be stretching the idea of a villain. They are stuck, simply as that. They'r not fighting anybody, except them freezing to death. It's kinda refreshing. And the ending is kinda satisfying. And the characters are kinda likable, so you will root for them. Also what I like about is how grounded on reality it is. Again, this is a situation you could be in. And the script tries to be as realistic as possibly, but fails at times. It has to throw something interesting on the screen, but we all know that if you were in that position, you would just stay in there. Don't act like you wouldn't!
Anyway, it's a decent flick. Not perfect, it has it's flaws, but it's surprisingly entertaining and grounded, that I liked it.
To the Wonder (2012)
Not... very... good.
First up, I LOVE Malick. I think he's a genius and has made 2 films that are in my top 15 favorite films of all time. But his latest is, sadly, not very good. While most of his films have always divided movie fans, some love his works, some find him pretentious and too abstract with no real ideas. But even his fans will have a hard time defending this. It will make you argue with yourself, for every good thing about it, there's a bad one. Beautiful - pretentious, dream-like - no plot, moving - too cold, Kurylenko was great - Affleck bland, personal story - told from the wrong side. It's Tree of Life, without the over-all beauty. Tree of Life works, IMO, because it's not meant to be a story, it's a flow of images and music, with no real connection. It was like 2001 of the 21st century. This movie needs a story to work. Tree of Life was simply about a family in the '50s, that's it. To The Wonder wants to tell a story, but also do the Tree of Life random flow thing. And simply, it doesn't work. Malick wants have his cake and eat it too, and that ruins the movie. Also my main problem was that, this is supposed to be a personal story about Malick and his time in Paris. That's fine, and very interesting, but he tells it from the wrong perspective. If it's a personal story, TELL IT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE! You can't do it from the other, you can try, but it will destroy the "personal" side of it, therefor, it turns itself to a very not moving story. If Malick wants to explore the feelings of his partner that he met in Paris, OK, but then focuses the whole movie to her. In the middle of it, he decides to focus on Affleck and, again, it doesn't work. The ideas are there, but not enough thought. Malick wastes his own talent, unfortunately.
Also, Affleck was, big shock, boring and highly not interesting actor. I don't mind his work as a director, but as an actor, I don't like him. I didn't know the character, nor did I understand him. Again, Tree of Life isn't about anything really, therefor Malick can almost get away with anything, in this, he tries to put too much complexity on the script but forgot about when directing. Maybe he wrote complex characters and story, but didn't execute them at all and decided to use the style from Tree of Life. Other performances were fine, Kurylenko was good, Bardem did an okey job, even though there not much character in them, except for Bardem. I was surprised, mildly, about how complex Bardem was. The only character that Malick tries to study. A man torn apart by his lose of faith in God and his loneliness. He is a very Bergman-esq character, IMO.
Over-all... It will raise arguments and will raise controversy, but isn't that how all art starts? Maybe, but I couldn't enjoy it, and I love Malick!
L'année dernière à Marienbad (1961)
Love it or hate, at least it's very original.
I have been awaiting to see this for so long and now finally did, it wasn't anything like I expected. So abstract, so unique, so layered and so experimental in many ways. It's just so over-whelming really. There are so many aspects of this movie that just baffle me in a away that won't leave me confused, but over-whelms me with different perspectives. Like how the people freeze all of the sudden, the dialog is cut off but we can see their mouths still moving and a lot more.
There are many, many different analysis of the movie, and I don't agree or disagree with any of them. Only one I do agree (in some way), that they are all dead, in a limbo. That makes, at least IMO, kinda sense. But I don't agree with the people who say that there's nothing to get (I sort of agree who say the film is satirizing itself though), that it's confusing to the point, you shouldn't know what it's about. I think that's just a cheap excuse to not understanding the movie or not wanting to analyze this. Saying this film doesn't have a meaning is simply dumbing the movie down a lot. Then, what is this movie in my opinion about? Well, I think this movie is about sub-consciousness story-telling. What does that mean? It's a term I have some up with, it's a kind of story- telling that makes the audience make up the story them self, in their sub-conscious. We are given so little about the story, that we make our own mind what is the story about. We decide did they meet, we decide what did the people say (when the dialog was cut off) and we decide how it ended. Alain Resnais himself said that everybody has to make their own mind about the story. This could be so abstract it's satirical in a way. And maybe Resnais wanted it to be almost a parody of itself, by being so surreal and impossibly to understand fully, maybe. I don't want to think like that, to me that would take way a lot of this movies appeal. It's meant to be understood, but it's meant to be understood for many angles. So, I guess it could be a parody. But it also kinda makes fun of the creativity that wasn't in main-stream Hollywood at that time. How creativity is dead in films now. One guy here in IMDb said it the best about this movie, something about how the woman represents current film-making and how "she" can't remember her golden days. That was pretty spot on.
A lot of people hate this film. I can understand it, it's not for everybody, because there is no clear answer anything nor a clear story. If you don't like experimental film, this isn't for you. If your looking for something new, something that's trying to invent how you see movies in a different way, this is for you.
To some people it's a mystery (actually to everybody pretty much) and a lot of people don't like the ambiguity of the story. It's a kind of movie that respects it's audience, nothing telling them everything, but respecting the audience to make up their own mind. And I understand that some of you don't like that at all. To some it's simply not "fun". And I understand that. But how can't you love the cinematography, the sets and the unique decisions in direction and the over-all uniqueness?
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Best movie of the 21st century so far, IMO.
Paul Thomas Anderson might be the best director of our generation, or at least that's what I think. His work is simply amazing, even if you don't like some of his movies, his movies are still so interestingly made and always have some creative ideas. I actually love all of his movies, though I haven't seen Hard Eight just yet. Also he keeps evolving more and more I think. How he started out basically ripping off Altman and Scorsese and now turned into this completely unique director. His style has gotten just more mature and borderline surreal. I think Punch-Drunk Love was his first completely unique and had a quirky style, even though it had a basic love story. There Will Be Blood continued on that almost- surreal, nightmarish atmosphere and that visual intensity. Punch-Drunk Love showed how Anderson showed emotions and feeling through visual imagery and music. There Will Be Blood added intensity and cynicism to that style. To me his post-Punch-drunk Love style seems like hes improvising a lot, not mainly following the script but becoming more as a director instead of a writer who makes damn good movies. After I saw There Will Be Blood, I would call him an auteur, one of the only ones we have right now. Enough rambling, now about the film!
Daniel Day Lewis hasn't had a bad performance and his performance in this, as the evil oil man Daniel Plainview, might be his best. And also one of the best of all time. Plainview is a complete capitalist and opportunist. I think he was written like a devilish character, since the other main character is a priest, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano. Plainview manipulates and destroys anyone who's in his path, but that doesn't make Eli any good. I guess Plainview is the devil and Eli is a man of God, but in the end the devil wins. While Plainview is completely evil and pretty insane, he's so smart. If you would meet him, you wouldn't think he's that evil. He's the master of manipulation knows that. He plays mind-games with Eli and tries to control everyone. He loses sight of everything as he gets more power, but so does Eli for that matter. More better terms, Eli represents religion as a whole and Plainview represents capitalism in USA. In a way this is about the war between these 2 in America and criticizes both. Both are ideals are founded by opportunism, only difference really is that Eli claims that he's a good guy and works for the God, but Daniel sees through that pretty easily. I especially love when this man comes and claims that he's Daniel's brother. Then Daniel soon finds out and he's not very happy about that. I love the scene where he finds out, that's the first scene where you see him starting to crack and becoming insane. It's a story about Plainview and how he got rich and powerful, but burned too many bridges on the way. The story is very bitter and highly cynical, but in some ways beautiful.
The atmosphere is quite simply brilliant. The intensity and almost surreal feel helps the movie a lot. I think what gives the movie a lot of it's haunting feel is the score and the imagery. The score is one of the best of all time, and one of the most unique. And Anderson's visual gifts are shows here well. How he can shoot the most beautiful scenes and then the most uncomfortable and claustrophobic. Every frame is beautiful in it's own way and every frame a reflection of the atmosphere and mood. It's kinda slow moving, but it's so hypnotic and kept my interest the whole way. Something about how he tells the story is so refreshing, it's not a 3-act structure, but it's not as weird like in a Lynch movie or something. But it doesn't have "chapters" I guess, it's more a flow or images and emotions.
If you want to see a movie about the bad side of humans, opportunism, religion vs. capitalism in American and some beautiful cinematography on the way, this is for you. One of my all time favorites as well.
A Forgotten Masterpiece.
Yukio Mishima is one of my all time favorite writers, my favorite book of his is The Temple of The Golden Pavilion. And I haven't read Patriotism, but this movie tells the story very well. The title cards tell you more about the background story than the actual film. The actual film is about a general (or some kind of soldier) coming home, having sex with his wife and then they both commit suicide or seppuku. What I find pretty bizarre is that Mishima himself plays the main character, also he produced, wrote and co-directed this. Sadly this was the only film he made, I'm sure he would have been a great director. Also, the "weird" part is that Mishima committed seppuku as well. I think this was almost like Mishima's fantasy, dying for your homeland. Mishima was pretty well know as a heavy patriot and was highly interested in Samurai lifestyle and their coda. In 1970, he and his small army tried to coup d'etat, and tried to bring back the conformist Japan back. But failed and committed seppuku. In a way this is about Mishima's life and kinda his future.
The main theme is patriotism and what does it actually mean. The main character can't go through the orders he was given, so he commits suicide, is he dying for his country or for himself? He seems to think that his dying for his country. His wife kills herself as well, mainly to show how committed she is to him. In that respect it's also about commitment to your country and to your married one.
It's I guess, I silent movie. Nobody says anything, only this beautiful music is in the back-ground. And this movies back-ground is pretty interesting as well. When Mishima died, his wife ordered every copy of this movie to be burned. However, in 2006 a perfect copy was found in a tea-box. I'm also surprised that this movie even got re leashed. This is a pretty gory film, the seppuku scene is pretty vile and disgusting. Mishima: A Life in 4 Chapters is a Paul Schrader movie he made in 1985. It's one of my favorite movies of all time and after seeing this, I think Schrader had seen this. Just how the styles are very similar, they both have chapters and both have parts filmed in a sound-stage in similar ways. Maybe I'm wrong...
Anyways, I love it. I think it's a masterpiece of Japanese cinema and deserves to be seen. It's weird that little over 600 user have rated this here on IMDb, well at least it got a Criterion release. I recommend this to any Mishima fan, and to any one else. Just a note, if you get disturbed easily by violence, I wouldn't recommend this to you...
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
An OK movie..
I really expected to love this movie, REALLY love this movie. But sadly, it just wasn't as good as I expected. Don't get me wrong, it was fun, had some good lines, kinda cool characters and Christopher Walken is always entertaining. But, people told me that this was like Pulp Fiction or Snatch, they said it was as quotable as those movies, and it isn't. There's couple funny quotes, mostly from Christopher Walken, and yeah it's pretty funny to hear Walken swearing. But that's about it. This won't be a long review, I usually write pretty long reviews, but I have little to say about this film, sadly. Let's start with the good stuff:
Now, I didn't enjoy Colin Farrel's performance nor the guy who played his best friend, I didn't think they were good. But I did love Woody Harrelson, Walken and Tom Waits. They are the best parts things about the movie. All of them are cool and just a lot of fun. Especially Tom Waits (I'm a big fan of his music) is incredibly cool. Woody was funny, I think the director was trying to do a character like Brick-Top, from Snatch, but kinda fails. Woody is funny, but I wasn't scared of him, like I was with Brick-Top. Walken is probably the best, at least technically. He has a lot of funny lines and just over all a pretty funny mood to the character. But he's also a bad-ass and he was also pretty emotional at times, like when he tells his ideas for the Vietnamese guy, that was pretty sad actually. Also I did enjoy the soundtrack and the story was decent, nothing new, but still interesting. I didn't like the ending that much, it was pretty dumb. Though the last scenes during the end credits, with Tom Waist was good.
The Bad stuff: Like I said, Colin Farrel and the guy who played his best friend were pretty dull. Especially Farrel, he's isn't interesting. Very, very dull character, who's not given that much to do. But the thing that I didn't like at all, is the "sad" parts. Only sad part is Walken and the Vietnamese guy thing. When the best friend explains his ending for the film... That was incredibly, unintentionally awkward, not witty, not charming, awkward as hell. And other than the Vietnamese guy, the sad bits are so misplaced and really dumb. People said this is like Snatch? I don't buy it. When you start your movie like Snatch, with your funny lines and violence, the "sad" parts simply don't work. When Walken dies, it's not that sad, because there wasn't much to the character, except, he's funny and kinda bad-ass. Even though he had the dead wife thing, we, as an audience, don't know the wife. There's barely any scenes with her and Walken, there was no emotional connection. The lady who played her was good though. But Walken's character is very slim and so is his relationship with her wife. I especially hated when the movie wanted to explore what happens after we die, hated that...
It's a decent watch, sadly it didn't stick out as anything amazing, but nothing horribly neither. Very basic and kinda dull, and this is the new Snatch? I hope not..