The first I've heard of it was just a few minutes ago when I was reviewing the Golden Globe nominees. That's a title you won't likely forget.
What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
The first I've heard of it was just a few minutes ago when I was reviewing the Golden Globe nominees. That's a title you won't likely forget.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
I don't know what about Good Time seems contrived but... it's not the movie you think it is before you see it. Don't find out anything about it. Just rent it and go in fresh. It will surprise you. At the very least, it won't be the movie you are expecting.
Yeah, it was very good.
Comparing Good Times to the Hangover and Superbad is way off.
*Kind of spoilers below this*
It's just a movie about a terrible dude who does terrible **** and has no redeeming qualities. It's unique in that it's a movie that doesnt give a **** about making you root for the lead. There is no character arc at the end that makes you feel good, hell you don't even feel sorry for the guy. I'm not sure there is any message in the movie other than "Dont be like this loser". A lot of people will probably dislike it for that.
*Kind of spoilers below this*
It's just a movie about a terrible dude who does terrible **** and has no redeeming qualities. It's unique in that it's a movie that doesnt give a **** about making you root for the lead. There is no character arc at the end that makes you feel good, hell you don't even feel sorry for the guy. I'm not sure there is any message in the movie other than "Dont be like this loser". A lot of people will probably dislike it for that.
Last edited:
As far as 3 Billboards, another great movie like Good Times, but it has the character arcs. It's not predicable and doesnt follow cliches, which is cool to see.
I disliked the ending scene. I would have like some closure on what they were planning on doing.
I disliked the ending scene. I would have like some closure on what they were planning on doing.
Um, the fact that in those movies miraculous/unbelievably_stupid things/events/actions kept happening over and over in the course of a single night?
*Spoilers*
I mean how often does a guy break his brother out of a hospital being guarded by police, and that guy happens to be the wrong guy, who happens to be a drug dealer, who happens to have stolen drugs, in all of that the guy tried to have sex with a minor and killed and pretended to be a security guard to steal back that same drugs?
Show me a single news event of all of that happening in a single night in real life. The plot is just too out of this world for me to take seriously. Seriously.
It's a ****ing movie. It's fiction. None of the events that happened are out of the realm of realism. You have the weirdest complaints about movies, half of the time which arent even valid.
If anything this movie is more realistic than most because the characters stay who they are. There is no moment of clarity, no moment where the character becomes a good guy and fixes everything wrong in his life.
Last edited:
It depends what kind of movie it is. Nobody's gonna take movies like The Hangover that seriously, it's entertaining to have out of this world plot. But Good Time clearly wanted to be taken seriously - evident by the first scene with the brother & the psychiatrist, and the various messages and theme sprinkled within it. But as it went on the situations just got stranger and weirder... it became harder and harder to take it seriously and makes you wander what the Directors wanted the movie to be? A serious movie about the consequence of walking on the wrong side of the law? Or just an entertaining 1.5 hour ala The Hangover?
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Responding to One Love: I think we have very different tastes and see art and fiction very differently, and that's cool. But the way you're talking about the movie is just so completely different from the way I and others who have seen it experienced it. The movie is so accomplished and interesting aesthetically and in its narrative. Its insights into its characters truly worked for me and it was really special. I really don't think it's a movie that should be spoiled either way so I don't want to talk to specifically about it but it is a thrilling journey. It is centered around a character who believes he acts out of love , and there are shades of love and compassion buried in him, but all of his choices are ultimately fueled by narcissism and impulse. The movie works on a relentless pace of action, consequence, action, consequence. its actually really great plotting. I don't agree that any of the things that happened in the movie are unbelievable... they might be wild, but I think they are plausible and have happened before. Just last year those two dudes broke out of an actual prison in a huge manhunt that lasted for like a week. Nothing in Good Time is that crazy or contrived. Talk to any cop who has done it for a while and they can probably tell you at least as crazy stories.
It's a very good character study of a type of person, living and not functioning on the margins of society, that I think a lot of people will get and recognize instantly. The characters are all very real and the decisions they make and the way they are feels 100% accurate and insightful.
It's a very good character study of a type of person, living and not functioning on the margins of society, that I think a lot of people will get and recognize instantly. The characters are all very real and the decisions they make and the way they are feels 100% accurate and insightful.
I mean, to each his own, but these are objectively garbage complaints.
I hear what you're saying. But to me after watching the whole movie I don't think I know enough about the main character as I should... nothing deep and meaningful except of how he reacts to each of the consequences of his action. A bit more background as to where he came from, where he lives, his prior relationship with the brother, etc, would have been really good but we didn't get that. Yes I get that he has love for his brother and I LOVED the first 20 minutes of it, I really do, it was pretty intense.
But the movie lost me when he went on that wild ride... when he stole his brother from the hospital - common sense tells me the police cannot be that dumb to leave the room unguarded when that was his duty, but ok I'd let that slide. Then he went to that woman's house and tried to have sex with a minor when he was supposed to be all stressed about the situation. Then he killed the security guard, and on and on.. I know it's action --> consequences but it feels like the director just wanted to keep the action going & making the movie more exciting rather than what would actually happen in real life.
I'm not saying I hate the movie, I just don't love it as much as most do, and that's all I'm saying.
OL do you not realize the whole scene w/ the minor was just because he wanted to use the car? It's not like he actually desired a sexual encounter, he was just using her to get the car (which you know, is the whole crux of the movie, this dude just uses everybody and has no self-awareness to how ****** he actually is).
And IDK how you can say it's completely unrealistic. It's a desperate dude on the run from bank robbery trying to get money in less than 24 hours. In that scenario ****ed up **** is likely to happen when you have no actual resources.
And they didnt kill the security guard. They just beat him up and poured LSD into his cuts. Which, by the way, is probably the thing you should cry "not real" on because I'm pretty sure no amount of LSD is going to have that fast and intense of a reaction.
And IDK how you can say it's completely unrealistic. It's a desperate dude on the run from bank robbery trying to get money in less than 24 hours. In that scenario ****ed up **** is likely to happen when you have no actual resources.
And they didnt kill the security guard. They just beat him up and poured LSD into his cuts. Which, by the way, is probably the thing you should cry "not real" on because I'm pretty sure no amount of LSD is going to have that fast and intense of a reaction.
Typically in a movie a plot is moved forward by external events and crises, while others are moved forward by the characters themselves.
In the story, yes, the main protagonist did move the plot forward with the burglary and breaking into the hospital to take his brother, etc. But at some point it seems to me like the director decided that he needed to move the plot forward by inserting some outlandish events.
- The policeman conveniently left his post
- The patient turned out to NOT be his brother
- The patient turned out to be a DRUG DEALER of all people
- The DRUG DEALER had stolen drugs or had money stashed away (I don't remember much of this, I sorta turned off half way through the movie)
- The woman who took in the stranger decided she needed to 'lie down' and left the STRANGER alone in the house with her TEENAGE daughter
- The daughter decided she likes the guy so much she started fooling around with him within minutes of meeting the guy.
At some point I had to throw my hands up in the air 'Comonnnnnn'.
I mean, these are some outlandish stuff that 'conveniently' moved the plot forward, and they are things inserted by the writer - not the decision caused by our protagonist. For me it's just too artificial, and unbelievable for me to take the movie all that seriously.
I get not liking the movie, but these complaints are just objectively silly and stupid.
And is it so outlandish that someone in police custody was a drug dealer?
You really don't remember the movie at all and you are complaining about it? The guy just got out of jail and met up w/ his friend who sells LSD. The guy who just got out of jail takes some acid and they go to an arcade (where they also sell). During this one of their friends shows up who just robbed a place. That's when the cops show up and they just run because he is high and doesnt really understand what's going on other than the fact there are cops around and he has drugs on him. They run into a theme park and stash the drugs, were they lose the cops by splitting up.
The dude who got away got a taxi, but by this point was tripping out on acid bad. He got into an argument w/ the driver, freaks out and jumps out of the car. So when he goes to the hospital and is under arrest, it's probably more precautionary than anything. He is knocked out on drugs, he isn't a high security inmate. Perfectly reasonable to think a cop who is guarding a suspect who just jumped out of a car going 40 mpg and is wrapped in bandages isnt going to escape, so he was probably just lax on the job.
And yes, the grandma felt bad for the dude so she let him in. Did you not pick up on the beat that Pattinson's character is really good at manipulating people?
And yes, there are probably a lot of 16 year olds who would love to kiss Robert Pattinson.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
FWIW I ended up seeing Call Me By Your Name last night. I don't typically see a lot of movies in the year they're released, as I'm lazy and tend to stick to what's on Netflix and Amazon Prime. But the buzz surrounding this one got me interested. It got absolutely rave reviews, and the younger lead, a guy named Timothée Chalamet (who I guess was also in Lady Bird, which I haven't seen), is apparently considered a very strong contender for the best actor, although I think Gary Oldman is still favored. If he pulls it off, he'd be the youngest winner of that particular award at 21 years old.
I expected to like the movie and did, although oddly enough I think I liked it less when I was watching it than I do now that I've had a day to process it. It's a slow-paced movie without much in the way of conflict, the kind of thing you have to let yourself just sink into. I think I was probably in slightly the wrong headspace or mood for it, despite my interest. But in retrospect, the lack of any overt conflict or antagonist/villain is actually a big part of the appeal for this particular film, given the usual themes of "gay movies." I was reading some interviews and such today after I saw it and found a quote from Armie Hammer (the other lead), that nicely sums this up:
And yeah, it was pretty much that. A nice poignant story without a lot of the melodrama that usually surrounds this particular subgenre. Not that said melodrama isn't valid or valuable at times... but we don't need it all the time.
There were couple of interesting minor controversies surrounding the film. The first had to do with the age of the characters, with one being 24 and the other 17. There's a certain "eww" factor that goes with that for Americans (although the age of consent in Italy, where the film takes place, is 14), and it isn't helped by the fact that the actors themselves are a 21-year-old guy who could easily pass for younger (Chalamet), and a 31-year-old guy who could easily pass for older (Hammer). So that aspect is... a little weird, I guess? But I can't say it bothered me too much, personally. Others may feel differently. But I enjoyed reading that apparently James Woods criticized the film for the age gap, and Hammer replied by reminding Woods that he'd dated a 19-year-old when he was in his 60s. Oh snap!
The other minor controversy that sprang up in the wake of the movie's release was--believe it or not--a lack of sex. Basically it's been accused of sanitizing the actual sex part of it, electing not to show anything explicit in order to not upset anyone with a more conservative bent, and hence give the film more mass appeal... at the cost of seeming somewhat self-hating and self-repressed (oddly, there is more female nudity than male nudity, though not much of either... go figure). Personally, I don't much care, as the movie's plenty good without more explicit sex scenes. But I do tend to think that such sanitizing is an odd choice considering that most people who would really have a problem with it probably weren't going to see the film at all anyway. (I mean, hell, remember when Larry Miller pulled Brokeback Mountain from all his theatres when he found out what it was about?) But overall, eh. *Shugs*
I will say that Chalamet's performance did seem as good as advertised. Whether he can win that best actor award over Oldman, I really don't know, I'm not good at predicting such things. But I don't think anyone can say he's not a worthy nominee. The very final scene of the movie as the credits roll is just Chalamet looking toward the camera quietly crying as the ending song plays... about four minutes of facing the camera crying. And it is some pretty impressive ****. I think a lot of actors wouldn't have been able to pull off something like this as convincingly as Chalamet did.
If I have any real complaints, one might be that Hammer was perhaps just a little too self-assured for this role. I already mentioned that he's 31 and could pass for older, trying to play a 24-year old grad student. The guy is so naturally charismatic that at times it was hard to buy the character's insecurity or indecisiveness. But I think that's probably my biggest gripe, and it's a pretty minor one, all things considered.
All in all, it was worth my time to watch, which is a high complement these days from me when it comes to movies. It seems now like all the best stuff is on television, and that a lot of movies coming out these days are pretty forgettable. But you can add this to the list of 2017 films that are actually worth seeing.
I expected to like the movie and did, although oddly enough I think I liked it less when I was watching it than I do now that I've had a day to process it. It's a slow-paced movie without much in the way of conflict, the kind of thing you have to let yourself just sink into. I think I was probably in slightly the wrong headspace or mood for it, despite my interest. But in retrospect, the lack of any overt conflict or antagonist/villain is actually a big part of the appeal for this particular film, given the usual themes of "gay movies." I was reading some interviews and such today after I saw it and found a quote from Armie Hammer (the other lead), that nicely sums this up:
Films that have gay characters or gay oriented themes, there’s often a tragedy element to them.
Yeah . . .
Often, someone’s dying, or has a fatal illness, or they can’t come out. But this film is mainly just a romance between these two characters. Was that something that appealed to you?
I loved that about the story. I loved that the only antagonist in this film is time. Because their time will end and they know it, and that’s it. No one gets sick; no one gets beaten up by rednecks. No one gets rejected by their family; no one gets rejected by their friends; no one has to come out and then suffer the consequences. It’s a beautiful story of two people who fall in love and that’s it. And I think that’s why a broad spectrum of people really can relate to it, because everybody’s felt feelings of infatuation for somebody else—like, “Oh my God, their leg just touched mine, holy ****.” Everyone can recognize that and the fact that we—[director] Luca [Guadagnino]—packaged it in a way that makes it incredibly accessible for anybody to show people that love is love is love is love. I think that's one of the beautiful things about the film that Luca was able to accomplish.
Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/armie-hammer-call-me-by-your-name-interview
Yeah . . .
Often, someone’s dying, or has a fatal illness, or they can’t come out. But this film is mainly just a romance between these two characters. Was that something that appealed to you?
I loved that about the story. I loved that the only antagonist in this film is time. Because their time will end and they know it, and that’s it. No one gets sick; no one gets beaten up by rednecks. No one gets rejected by their family; no one gets rejected by their friends; no one has to come out and then suffer the consequences. It’s a beautiful story of two people who fall in love and that’s it. And I think that’s why a broad spectrum of people really can relate to it, because everybody’s felt feelings of infatuation for somebody else—like, “Oh my God, their leg just touched mine, holy ****.” Everyone can recognize that and the fact that we—[director] Luca [Guadagnino]—packaged it in a way that makes it incredibly accessible for anybody to show people that love is love is love is love. I think that's one of the beautiful things about the film that Luca was able to accomplish.
Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/armie-hammer-call-me-by-your-name-interview
And yeah, it was pretty much that. A nice poignant story without a lot of the melodrama that usually surrounds this particular subgenre. Not that said melodrama isn't valid or valuable at times... but we don't need it all the time.
There were couple of interesting minor controversies surrounding the film. The first had to do with the age of the characters, with one being 24 and the other 17. There's a certain "eww" factor that goes with that for Americans (although the age of consent in Italy, where the film takes place, is 14), and it isn't helped by the fact that the actors themselves are a 21-year-old guy who could easily pass for younger (Chalamet), and a 31-year-old guy who could easily pass for older (Hammer). So that aspect is... a little weird, I guess? But I can't say it bothered me too much, personally. Others may feel differently. But I enjoyed reading that apparently James Woods criticized the film for the age gap, and Hammer replied by reminding Woods that he'd dated a 19-year-old when he was in his 60s. Oh snap!
The other minor controversy that sprang up in the wake of the movie's release was--believe it or not--a lack of sex. Basically it's been accused of sanitizing the actual sex part of it, electing not to show anything explicit in order to not upset anyone with a more conservative bent, and hence give the film more mass appeal... at the cost of seeming somewhat self-hating and self-repressed (oddly, there is more female nudity than male nudity, though not much of either... go figure). Personally, I don't much care, as the movie's plenty good without more explicit sex scenes. But I do tend to think that such sanitizing is an odd choice considering that most people who would really have a problem with it probably weren't going to see the film at all anyway. (I mean, hell, remember when Larry Miller pulled Brokeback Mountain from all his theatres when he found out what it was about?) But overall, eh. *Shugs*
I will say that Chalamet's performance did seem as good as advertised. Whether he can win that best actor award over Oldman, I really don't know, I'm not good at predicting such things. But I don't think anyone can say he's not a worthy nominee. The very final scene of the movie as the credits roll is just Chalamet looking toward the camera quietly crying as the ending song plays... about four minutes of facing the camera crying. And it is some pretty impressive ****. I think a lot of actors wouldn't have been able to pull off something like this as convincingly as Chalamet did.
If I have any real complaints, one might be that Hammer was perhaps just a little too self-assured for this role. I already mentioned that he's 31 and could pass for older, trying to play a 24-year old grad student. The guy is so naturally charismatic that at times it was hard to buy the character's insecurity or indecisiveness. But I think that's probably my biggest gripe, and it's a pretty minor one, all things considered.
All in all, it was worth my time to watch, which is a high complement these days from me when it comes to movies. It seems now like all the best stuff is on television, and that a lot of movies coming out these days are pretty forgettable. But you can add this to the list of 2017 films that are actually worth seeing.
Are you seriously telling me a typical grandma would let a stranger into the house in the middle of the night and instead of seeing what he's up to and make him leave, would rather go to sleep and leave him alone with your 16 year old grand daughter?
That's when the movie started to lose me. Logically it just made absolutely no sense. No grandma or any parent in their right mind would ever let a stranger into the house in the middle of the night and leave him alone with a minor especially a girl.
Yes, bad parenting is soooooooo unbelievable. That never ever happens.
It's just unrealistic. Like I said if it's a silly comedy like The Hangover then I get it, that's the kind of thing they'd have in it. But this was supposed to be a serious movie with a serious message and yet I feel like they had to rely on an outlandish action that would never happen in real life to move the story forward & make the story exciting. It's just too contrived for me and I just can't take the whole film all that seriously.
Whatever though, I'm done with this conversation, we'd just have to agree to disagree.