Very creative, sweet, funny, moving, though a bit cliched at times. If you love the Beatles, I think you will enjoy this movie. A good one for a day when you're feeling low and taking your problems too seriously.
By far--and I can say this without hesitation--the best truffle pig kidnapping movie I have seen all year. Top of heap in this highly competitive, overly crowded genre. The acting was superb, particularly that of the pig. The subtle emotional contours displayed in between its artfully articulated grunts and snorts...well, I'm quite sure there was none of this "What is my motivation?" nonsense on his part in the filming of this masterpiece! And the pauses...sublimely played. You know what they say, "The bigger the pig, the longer the pauses." I was also impressed that although the pig could have completely dominated the acting space, it gracefully backed off and let the fabulous Nicholas Cage deliver his phenomenally understated performance. Also impressive was the portrayal of the fascinatingly sinister truffle market in the Portland, Oregon area. I've always wondered about this and the film provided a voyeuristic journey into its sordid, porcine-like underbelly. Who would have thought they would have organized Fight Club type brawls deep in the catacombs of the city! It was all so realistic and believable that after watching it, real life seems like the fantasy, not the film. "Pig" literally brought me to tears.
First 3/4 was very original, engaging, and entertaining. Fell apart at the climax, a lot of senseless violence with few and unsatisfying resolutions of conflicts built up in the plot. To me, it felt like the filmmaker didn't know how to end the story and got sloppy.
Not bad until the end, which made me feel like I'd been clobbered over the head with some kind of #metoo baseball bat. The "hero" acted smug and self-righteous, and it was pretty clear the filmmakers thought so as well, but the fact is, she was just as evil as the villain. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Plot and character motivations were lacking.
I hope I don't offend, but it seems to me you have to be pretty simple-minded to think this was a good movie. They got all the science wrong -they should have either either set it so far into the future that all the current problems with fast communication and travel across the staggering distances in space are solved--or set it just around the corner, time wise, and made it believable. They tried the second approach and failed miserably. What was left beyond that--the "personal story"--was really hard to watch. It's as if some science fiction writers felt the pressure to make it not just sci-fi but to have a touching personal story, only that's not their strong point, and it fell flat, tool. "Man goes to save father and find himself." Ugh. A formula approach, has been done do death, and usually a LOT better. One more complaint--the overall plot and sequence of scenes seemed like a thinly disguised copy of Kubrick's iconic 2001
Wow, dying person realizes you should live every moment to its fullest and appreciate life. What an insight! Cardboard characters and a dull tone, as if actually written by a professor. In this case, the critics were right.
Something was wrong with this movie - anticlimactic. If this were a true story, maybe it would have worked ok, but as fiction, something was missing. I guess to me, there was a lack of connection between the hero's actions and how the two were finally found. He seemed to spend most of his time just surviving or flailing around. Again, maybe like real life, or a true story, but not really engaging entertainment. His bad luck and bad decisions became almost comical by the end.
I knew that any movie so highly rated by the critics had to be a stinker. The fact that the director chose to shoot the film in black and white says everyone one needs to know about his artsy-fartsy mindset. Film runs through the camera relentlessly while filming absolutely nothing, while he expects the audience to sit in profound silence, dumbstruck by his genius. I was dumbstruck, alright--who in their right mind would finance this self-indulgent fodder?
Wow, incredibly bad, poorly thought out movie. Felt like a first draft script written by a team of bored 9 to 5 studio employees who think the audience is stupid and will buy anything. So unbelievable the genre classification should be "fantasy."
The Shape of Cliche. Can't believe this totally predictable, schmaltzy rehash of twenty other movies got high audience reviews. The entire thing felt like it was thrown together in a week from a grab bag of cliches--not an original idea in it. And after you think the saccharine can't be piled on any higher in this long, drawn out mess, we get a POEM at the end--the narrator just can't shut up. All I can say is I guess most of the viewers didn't see the twenty other movies this one stole from. Maybe this could work for children, but sex with a reptile? I don't think so. Hollywood, get a grip, you have lost all touch with reality.
GOVERNMENT BAD, JOURNALISTS GOOD. That sums up this movie which would otherwise have gotten 5 stars from me, because it was excellent in terms of drama. However, creating black and white characters that are Saints and The Devil is an insult to my intelligence, and should be to everyone else's. Newspapers are for-profit enterprises with the number one goal of making money. This elemental fact was buried underneath a pile of cinematic Hollywood sentimentality. Sorry, Mr. Spielberg and Ms. Streep, I don't buy it.
Another excellent character study type film starring Jack Black. He is an underrated actor, IMHO. This movie is funny yet poignant at the same time and clearly shows the "gray" aspect of human nature, that no one is purely good or bad. The highpoint are the scenes about the pope. If you like films about con men, you'll enjoy this movie, though in this case you can see that this man did not set out to be con man but, through ignorance and his own delusions about his potential success with his business ventures, dug himself in deeper and deeper until he had to become one or go to jail. Great film. But not everyone will "get" it.
Great acting,a script with potential, but that's about it. Let me explain something to you reviewers who are giving this such high marks. RT is a place where people go to to see films reviewed and compared to ALL films on the market, not films only by students and young directors. Yes, she made an amazing film for a writer/director her age, with great potential, but that does not make it a good movie. The plot was a mess and story structure practically nonexistent. Why the main character was called Sybil, and walked with a limp, were never explained at all, and these were key elements of the story. My advice to the filmmaker: don't be in such a hurry to make your movie--get the script right first. Any decent editor would have called you on this and told you to either cut it out from the beginning or explain it at some point before the end. Also, the main character was an extremely attractive girl, and even when she came to school in a sexy outfit, the boys acted as if she didn't exist--all of them! Not realistic behavior and did not match the characters of the boys as the script was written, boys were clearly obsessed with looks and nothing else. The middle of the story meandered as well, suffered from typical middle story problems, and the ending was sketchy. "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage." Great work for a first film, but could have been so much better with proper story editing.
Can't believe reviewers gave this one such high marks. Clearly a Tarantino imitation...without the artistic flair of Tarantino. Worse, it doesn't know what genre it is--the first half is a serious prison drama and then suddenly, when he goes to the max facility, it is like Dorthy descending into Oz--it turns comic book, completely over the top and unbelievable. Editing through the movie sucks--the director has not learned the "start late, end early" adage. And this movie was far too much like another one that came out last year. To the filmmaker: Be more ORIGINAL. Create a genre for yourself that is purely you.
Not sure how this movie is getting such high reviews. Extremely slow, trying to milk too much screen time and tension out of too little plot. Lacks focus, seems to be all over the place, and feels very contrived (ex-rodeo rider, for example--what did that have to do with anything? Not much). My wife fell asleep watching it. Also ,the "China Brothers" who wrote this seem like they're trying to imitate the Coen Brothers. We already have the Coen Brothers, guys, come up with your own style.
Solid film, entertaining, tragic, stimulating, inspiring, all at the same time. Great acting, pacing, storyline, stayed with me and gave me some things to ponder. One of which was that the parole board portrayed in the film was actually doing its job well, and the system was working just as it should (not to grant parole criminals who do not acknowledge their crimes or remorse), but in this case it did not work, could not work. Interesting movie.
I will give two stars for the acting, direction, etc., but the character herself is such a vapid, immature, self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual twit I found it impossible to watch, quit after 30 minutes. A repulsive, unlikelable character without a shred of humility or common sense.