This is the most brilliant movie to be produced in over a decade. Wheatley is the most brilliant director of our time. People call this movie arty as if that makes this movie terrible. It doesn't. It just means they've been too spoon-fed by Hollywood junk to understand true visionary art. If you don't like this movie, go watch Transformers!
shareI hate Transformers. I also hate this. Artsy films aren't good or bad, a film is good or bad based on many, many things. I personally felt this film was nonsense, Everybody is entitled to an opinion, art can't exist without opinion. You've said what you think, I've said what I think but I think it's just incredibly narrow minded and obnoxious of you to assume that everybody who dislikes this film, would be suited to a Michael Bay movie.
shareEverybody is entitled to their opinion. But some opinions are the wrong opinion. And someone who thinks this brilliant film is nonsense must be too slow-witted to understand this auteur's style. That's why I said you'd be better off watching Michael Bay (or Uwe Boll) movies.
share[deleted]
How is it possibly an incoherent mess? Some of the stuff makes sense, the rest was ambiguous things open to interpretation.
shareNone of that made sense. Thanks for hating on Transformers. Deadman was a better movie than this. This is just as weak and *beep* as To The Wonder because the directors make these things for themselves not cause they want to make a good movie. Honestly it's sad cause I don't mind films that are black and white or indie. And I like British films but this was *beep* Did we REALLY need to see a guy taking a *beep* in the field and some dude whipping out his dick ?? And then one part where the guy was tripping balls and I think that black thing was some sort of eclipse ?? Again No sense. Boring and Uninteresting Garbage. 1/10. No Reason to watch this or ever bother watching it again. So you can enjoy being a jack ass who "doesn't like things spoonfed".
shareYou just don't understand the director's vision. He wasn't merely showing a guy "taking a *beep* or "some dude whipping out his dick". He was showing the inhumanity of those times. Things back then weren't glamorous. Nor was it good to look at. Since you've been so used to Hollywood gloss, you're unable to like something that doesn't look pretty. Back then, when the story takes place, and you were a soldier, you would have to share living quarters with other men. That means you were right there when men defecated or "whipped out their dick". It wasn't pretty. But that was reality. That's what the director was trying to do. He was trying to mix reality in with true art.
shareIt was pretentious twaddle saved by the great acting of Reece Shearsmith 5/10
shareAn interesting series of posts, given that the OP wrote "great cinematography is tried to use as an excuse to cover up a lack of story; fans of the movie say, "You people who hate this flick don't understand the director's style. Go watch the Avengers"; fans of the flick try to explain the gaping plotholes and unexplained story elements as being "open to interpretation"; etc", "Being in an arthouse film must be the most unfulfilling job for an actor (even worse than being in a b-movie)" and "arthouse film lovers will use the "it's more realistic than Hollywood garbage; go watch Transformers" as a way to excuse the terrible film and bash detractors of the film at the same time" on the Only God Forgives board.
shareDo you always stalk other people's posts? That was a big budget movie. This is a low budget movie. As a result, my opinion is different.
shareNo, astonishingly enough we've just been to two of the same IMDb boards. I'm a Nicolas Winding Refn fan. And Only God Forgives was not a big budget movie.
shareAnd you just happen to remember my posts that I made months ago by coincidence...? Right.
OGF is a big budget compared to AFIE. The former had a big name Hollywood star and millions of dollars for the budget. The latter didn't have either nor did it even reach 1 million dollars for the budget.
Actually, it happened the other way around. I was on that board having recently rewatched that film, and remembered this post. It's not so long since I watched A Field In England and was on this board.
"OGF is a big budget compared to AFIE. The former had a big name Hollywood star and millions of dollars for the budget." - 'Compared to' is key here. The budget was less than $5 million, which sounds like a lot, but for a feature film in this day and age is not. We're talking about a largely foreign language project that didn't get wide distribution. Just because it cost more than A Field In England doesn't make it Avatar. The average Hollywood comedy costs several times more these days (looking at the estimates on IMDb, The Hangover 3 cost around $103 million, Grown Ups 2 cost $80 million, The Internship cost $58 million, and This Is 40 cost $35 million). Even Winding Refn's previous film Drive wasn't a large production, and it still had more than 3 times the budget of Only God Forgives.
Clearly AFIE cost less (and on a side note, I'm very glad that it got made and distributed), but it's incredibly hypocritical to write "arthouse film lovers will use the "it's more realistic than Hollywood garbage; go watch Transformers" as a way to excuse the terrible film and bash detractors of the film at the same time" on the board of one low budget arty film only to then write "If you don't like this movie, go watch Transformers!" just because you're on the board of a lower budget one. Neither were big budget films or even close to being mainstream offerings, and you used the exact approach you criticised 'arthouse lovers' for.
First off, it's way too much of a coincidence for you to happen to remember my post. You didn't respond to that thread at all. So how could you remember me and my posts? Do you always "happen to remember" posts from random imdb.com users you've never engaged in conversations with?
Secondly, OGF isn't exactly indie either. It was shown at Cannes and received reviews from several prominent newspapers around the world. Compared to AFIE, OGF is practically mainstream. That's what makes my response different. I honestly have a difficult time understanding why you don't get where I'm coming from.
How is it 'way too much of a coincidence' to recognise the exact same phrase (one that doesn't even make sense to me, which made it stand out- like the same person can't enjoy an art film and a popcorn film) when on two boards in a relatively close time period? "That sounds familiar, I'm sure I read that somewhere recently" I thought, before coming back here (I also rewatched the second half of Kill List on Film4 not that long ago, and as a result had been looking on Ben Wheatley related boards- you don't have to reply to every board and post you read), and realising it was from the same poster. No offence, but I'm not so interested in a total stranger that I performed a background check.
I just find it baffling that you would defend an indie film and dismiss its detractors with the exact same line you used to criticise another one and its fans. I don't think there's much logic to it, and it comes off a bit like you're just hoping to rile people up on both boards (much like accusing someone of stalking, as if they couldn't have seen two films you've seen and looked them both up online). Not that it's necessarily what you're doing, and not that it really matters if you believe me.
Lots of indie films get shown at Cannes. And A Field In England was discussed a lot in the media when it came out due to the simultaneous cinema/DVD/TV/download release. Only God Forgives is not a big budget or mainstream film (Ben Wheatley is known for always working with tiny budgets, and his next project is due to cost more than OGF), it just stars someone who has been in several mainstream films, and happened to be Winding Refn's follow up to his most mainstream and popular film. Most of the people whose only previous encounters with Winding Refn's work had been Drive wound up complaining about the film precisely because it wasn't a mainstream film. It was arty, weird, and unpleasant enough that it alienated a lot of viewers who went in expecting a typical revenge film starring the pretty-boy from The Notebook in a heroic role.
There are three cinemas near me: Two multiplexes, and one small independent/arthouse cinema. The latter showed both AFIE and OGF. The other two didn't show either of them. Because they're both low budget arthouse films that wouldn't fill up a multiplex (and both have been subjected to similar criticisms- with people declaring them to be pretentious, arty for the sake of it, etc).
His point was still 100% relavent to the topic whether he "stalked" you or not.
shareIt does make me laugh when people enjoy a film like this and then because not everyones going to like it they have to presume they only like big blockbuster films like Transformers or they're not intelligent enough for it.
I watch all different kinds of films and watched this recently, i have to say i didn't get it, didn't know what the hell was going at times, didn't find it that entertaining and the word pretentious did pop into my head more than once. It did make me want to come on IMDb and see what others thought of it or to find out more about it but i doubt i will be watching it again, even if the very talented Mr Shearsmith is in it.
Oh and i don't particularly like Transformers either, what a shock !!!
I really like this flick... maybe I'm just messed up from all the Seijin Suzuki flicks I've seen. I wouldn't say there where gaping plotholes, the narrative was set up differently. Again it could be because mr. Seijin Suzuki did this in a couple of his flicks especially his Taisho trilogy, so I be a bit used to this approach.
I could see not everyone liking this movie though, some people just prefer more helpful narrative.
Don't take it all too seriously when it comes to watching movies, your not saving the world or anything. You don't have to justify liking a flick, if you like it great. Don't force people in to liking it. Make up your own mind and don't follow IMDB when it comes to opinion.
I find it baffling that Transformers and its sequels are consistently used as examples of grade F films by snobbish IMDB users despite the existence of numerous authentically awful movies such as Meet the Spartans. Personally, I enjoyed all three Transformers films, and why not? My choice for greatest English language director of my lifetime is Stanley Kubrick, but I don't demand that every movie be 2001: A Space Odyssey. There's nothing wrong with watching a film that is purely entertainment and not philosophically substantial. At any rate, I was impressed by Kill List and intend to see this film as well, even though, horror of horrors, I liked Transformers.
shareWhen people say "go watch transformers" they have a very particular person in their mind. And that person does not have Kubrick as their favorite director.
share[deleted]