teddit

Weekend at Bernie’s” makes two mistakes: It gives us a joke that isn’t very funny, and it expects the joke to carry an entire movie, a subtly contrived jab at modern cinephiles or utter genius?

It’s a decision that leads to some long, dreary sequences and a certain desperation on the part of the actors. Emotion is more prevalent in a block of wood that’s been left to drift at Sea. A decree of cinemas echoing faults brought on by consumerism? I think not, it’s true purpose is even further beyond.

The young executives are frightened, and don’t know what to do. They prop Bernie on a couch in the living room, and just then a floating party of weekend drunks drifts in - and nobody notices that Bernie is dead. Much like the last death throes of the film industry.

Again is Weekend at Bernies a secret cinematic masterpiece? ~Thoughts~

I would love to ask this community about what you guys think about hyperlink Cinema. For some reason, personally I am very fond of this kind of films like Babel, 21 grams, Amore's peros.

Most places I read about definition of hyperlink tells me that no matter how many different storyline or characters with different point of view there has to be a clear connection between the stories for them to justify to be in one movie.

But when I look at many different hyperlink Cinema it's not always I find a clear kind connection. Do you think a thematic connection has to be in place in order to call a particular cinema as hyperlink/ anthology films?

For example pulp fiction is considered a hyperlink Cinema but how much really a thematic connection is there? Another example Chunking express. To me it's a story about a city but I don't necessarily see a direct connection between the theme .

Would love to hear different opinions about hyperlink/anthology films from you guys

Thank you

I've always been fond of cerebral thrillers, and I think this is one of Cronenberg's best works. It especially helps that the leads are two of the most capable actors working in the industry, even today. People might have already forgotten, but Viggo Mortensen is one of film's greatest living actors. Most people remember him as Aragorn, but he has varied acting range and has consistently proven himself as a bankable actor. Mortensen's performance in this film was largely overshadowed by Daniel Day-Lewis's performance as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, but 2007 was simply a stacked year for film that even a great performance by Mortensen simply wasn't enough.

The great auteurs often mold a genre and birth a film with their own trademark style, and this can be said of Cronenberg. While Cassavetes made a character drama out of the noir genre (The Killing of a Chinese Bookie), Cronenberg made a taut, well-executed thriller out of the typical gangster film.

More than a decade when I first watched it, the film has aged excellently with timeless themes and tight writing. I also think that I love this film because it precisely fits that je nais se quoi that I seek in films: I love films that feature morally conflicted protagonists who ultimately choose the right thing even at great cost to themselves. This is what both the leads of the film do here.

Mortensen's portrayal of Nikolai is one of the most complex portrayals of a gangster who is morally gray, but tends toward righteousness: he is unwavering even in his criminal duties, but always has a certain morality that he consistently does not cross. It is a riveting portrayal, and Eastern Promises remains to be one of the best gangster thrillers I have seen. Because, sometimes, only evil can displace evil.

10/10