The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Well that explains why it looks so authentic.

I wouldn't have been able to tell. I mean, the only reason we go in the water here is to wrestle with the alligators in the bayou

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I wouldn't have been able to tell. I mean, the only reason we go in the water here is to wrestle with the alligators in the bayou

That, and you bi-monthly bath, right?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

That, and you bi-monthly bath, right?

Depends...by bi-monthly if you mean twice a month, no. If you mean every two months, yes.

[Show spoiler]

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Depends...by bi-monthly if you mean twice a month, no. If you mean every two months, yes.

[Show spoiler]

Good one.

[Steve46]

Certified Copy

I'm not sure what I just watched, but it gripped me for the entire 106 minutes. Juliette Binoche won Best Actress at Cannes last year for her performance and her face expresses so many emotions. It's in French, English and Italian. It's almost purely dialogue-driven. The ending is vague. The whole thing is a mystery. I already want to see it again - whatever it was.

4.5/5

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'll be getting the Blu-ray.

That train scene is going to be

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I really want to see this. Didn't catch it in the theaters, but I'll definitely be watching it at some point before the year is up.

Plus...I love me some Carrie Underwood

I had a free pass for Soul Surfer from Amazon when I bought a Blu-ray, but I never used it. It looked good, but just not something that made me want to get in my car and drive to the theater. After Squid's review and the review on this site from Martin, I will make sure to see it at some point.

I have to agree on Carrie Underwood. Her husband is one lucky man.

[tanujdua]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Super 8

About goddamn time...

[Show spoiler]Just under 2 months I waited for this film, that's possibly the longest I have ever waited to see a film after a US release, I haven't got a problem with the August release, this is the perfect August film, it's risky, it isn't a franchise. This is why films like Rise of the Planet of the Apes are released here (from what I've heard, a very solid and daring attempt at creating a very serious drama from a dead franchise), Cowboys and Aliens (Unknown source material) and Conan (R rating) are released around this time, because the big films have left and the great films have nothing left to battle, my problem is the June release, between X-Men and Lantern and Transformers, this was buried very fast, if they were released in sync with the UK, this would of made a lot more money (however Apes have this weekend, so I'm not so sure)

However, forget that, and remember this, I was hyped as hell for this film, I traveled extra far to watch it in Digital HD and I even brought a large drink, I've never done that since I was about 13. I was hyped as hell, so if Czar was here, it's already clear, I'm biased (just kidding), no, I tell you what it really means...instant 10/10... Weeeellllllllll....

I'm not going to deny it, I couldn't really find a flaw in it saying that, there's one problem, I LOVE THE FILM!!!!

Hate to fall into my pre-set stereotype of loving these nitched films, but I can't think of a single film that packs what this film has since, Jurassic Park, E.T., the original Indy trilogy, etc, you see what I'm getting at

This did salute back to the films that captivated me in my childhood, the imagination, the characters, the humour, the horror, the mystery, the suspense, the action of which you could be a part of, but you just know that you would die if you did It's a movie!!!

This entire summer has not understood the concept of a movie, it's all EPIC CONCLUSION, LEAVE YOUR BRAIN AT THE DOOR ENTERTAINMENT, THE LAST PIECE OF THE AVENGERS PUZZLE everything this summer seems to have some alteria motive, nothing is something that can stand alone, the only thing that came close to it was Fast Five, and that was because it was trying to run away from it's own series, oddly enough.

This film just gets it, it gets the fact that movie is a storytelling device, it gets that compelling character will get the audience to invest in the film. And that action should be a reward, not because you've sat through the film filled full of crap, but because you don't know whats going to happen, you don't know what characters are going to escape or come out alive. It rewards you for caring.

Films, simply put, should not be rarity like this, hidden away. It should be every film released, regardless, this shows no excuses to films like Transformers (You know I was going there), where you're characters are just a waste of time and a deterioration from the expensive stuff that people pay top dollar for. And that they don't have to wise cracking, comedy characters to be likeable, make them human, and the humor will come naturally.

Everything just fits with Super 8, there is rarely a moment that does not work, and at the moment I can't think of a single moment that didn't work. There are no wasted seconds through out this film, I laughed more than I laughed at any film this year, I've welled up in the eyes more than any film this year (considering this is the summer my childhood apparently ended) and I was more scared that any film I care to mention than this film, any positive emotion I felt throughout Super 8, it's just a film that made me smile, for once this year a film that had me smiling like the Cheshire Cat throughout

10/10

Sorry for fitting into stereotype

Ah great review, cannot wait to see this. Hopefully I'll get to see this, Captain America and Rise of the Planet of the Apes this week (maybe even that penguins movie because I think it looks ).

[SquidPuppet]

Battle: Los Angeles

2011 PG-13 116 minutes

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Netflix synopsis:

Led by their skillful staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart), a platoon of gutsy Marines, including Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), Simmons (Taylor Handley) and Lockett (Cory Hardrict), fight to protect all humankind from astonishingly powerful aliens who've suddenly invaded Los Angeles. Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) directs this sci-fi film that also stars Lucas Till, Ramon Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan and Michael Peña.

A handfull of Marines save the world. Hoorah! Semper Fi!

Popcorn required.

I have read some critics complaining about testosterone fueled dialogue. Helloooo??? It's the Marines during combat. What did they expect?

The film has its shortcomings, sure. But the FUN far outweighed the flaws.

Cool aliens and tons of stuff gets blown up.

I watched the special features and a lot of the big explosions were REAL. Most actors did 99% of their own stunt work.

Film 3.5/5
PQ 4.75/5 Excellent
AQ 4.5/5 Damn good

I recommend this for viewers who can let go of reality and detail in order to enjoy the action and danger of a sci-fi-war movie.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Good one.

Originally Posted by killowertz

I had a free pass for Soul Surfer from Amazon when I bought a Blu-ray, but I never used it. It looked good, but just not something that made me want to get in my car and drive to the theater. After Squid's review and the review on this site from Martin, I will make sure to see it at some point.

I have to agree on Carrie Underwood. Her husband is one lucky man.

Yea it didn't strike me as a go to the theater movie...unless I had a free pass of course

Indeed

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Battle: Los Angeles

[Show spoiler]2011 PG-13 116 minutes

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Netflix synopsis:

Led by their skillful staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart), a platoon of gutsy Marines, including Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), Simmons (Taylor Handley) and Lockett (Cory Hardrict), fight to protect all humankind from astonishingly powerful aliens who've suddenly invaded Los Angeles. Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) directs this sci-fi film that also stars Lucas Till, Ramon Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan and Michael Peña.

A handfull of Marines save the world. Hoorah! Semper Fi!

Popcorn required.

I have read some critics complaining about testosterone fueled dialogue. Helloooo??? It's the Marines during combat. What did they expect?

The film has its shortcomings, sure. But the FUN far outweighed the flaws.

Cool aliens and tons of stuff gets blown up.

I watched the special features and a lot of the big explosions were REAL. Most actors did 99% of their own stunt work.

Film 3.5/5
PQ 4.75/5 Excellent
AQ 4.5/5 Damn good

I recommend this for viewers who can let go of reality and detail in order to enjoy the action and danger of a sci-fi-war movie.

I approve of this. Saw it in the theaters because someone gave me their free movie money from an Amazon promotion () and enjoyed it...but the camera work was terrible for a good portion of the film. I lowered my score from 4 to 3.75 because of it.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Battle: Los Angeles

The film has its shortcomings, sure. But the FUN far outweighed the flaws.

Interesting, the same could be said about the next movie I'm going to review...

Glad you liked "Battle LA." Chances are that my own score will improve on repeat viewings (...just like with the next movie I'm going to review... ).

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Battle: Los Angeles

2011 PG-13 116 minutes

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Netflix synopsis:

Led by their skillful staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart), a platoon of gutsy Marines, including Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), Simmons (Taylor Handley) and Lockett (Cory Hardrict), fight to protect all humankind from astonishingly powerful aliens who've suddenly invaded Los Angeles. Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) directs this sci-fi film that also stars Lucas Till, Ramon Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan and Michael Peña.

A handfull of Marines save the world. Hoorah! Semper Fi!

Popcorn required.

I have read some critics complaining about testosterone fueled dialogue. Helloooo??? It's the Marines during combat. What did they expect?

The film has its shortcomings, sure. But the FUN far outweighed the flaws.

Cool aliens and tons of stuff gets blown up.

I watched the special features and a lot of the big explosions were REAL. Most actors did 99% of their own stunt work.

Film 3.5/5
PQ 4.75/5 Excellent
AQ 4.5/5 Damn good

I recommend this for viewers who can let go of reality and detail in order to enjoy the action and danger of a sci-fi-war movie.

The Dialogue ruins this movie.

Not that I didn't enjoy it overall but the quick cut dialogue was cheesy and detracted from the movie for me.

Fantastic sounding Blu-ray though

[Al_The_Strange]

“Babylon AD.”

As it is with any decent sci-fi movie, there’s a good amount of coolness to this film. From the grungy war-torn hoods of Russia to the sleek and sleazy streets of New York, we are plunged into a rather bleak-looking future with a lot of fantastic ideas and gizmos. It’s a fine setting to stage some gunfights, cagefights, a crazy snowmobile chase, and a smorgasbord of fine special effects (including a super-cool slow-motion missile exploding ).

Despite all its coolness, something about this film falls short. For which I blame the story. It starts off very promising, granting the main lead with strong characterization, and kicking off a journey that just sounds too cool to be true. As it goes on, however, the story proves to be unrefined (marketplace explodes, no reason given. Characters go to a refugee camp, no real reason is given. Not to mention, the ending seems rather inconclusive). It is especially unrefined in the area of thematic material; there are glimpses of brilliance as the film shows the rough and tough struggle of human survival, and generally paints the human race in a negative light. Unfortunately, without any specific focus or background, these generalizations just don’t hold much weight (it’s a theme better covered in “Children of Men”). There are many slick ideas in the film, and it is interesting to see how religion is trivialized toward the end. But for whatever reason, nothing really gels together the way it should, and the film just comes off as another typical dystopian flick.

For what it’s worth, the film is well-made, with slick photography and editing. A couple of scenes are annoyingly shakey, but I’ve seen worse (like “Battle LA” ). Acting is decent; Vin Diesel is the man and Michelle Yeoh is good. I never really liked Melanie Thierry or her character, but in retrospect, she did have her moments. Writing is okay. Production value is good, featuring plenty of cool sets, props, costumes, gadgets, vehicles, and cityscapes. Music is alright.

This movie was quite off-putting at first glance, but it’s actually not quite as bad as I remembered. It does make me want to read the original book, to see more of the story.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5) Increased from 2.5/5

Recommendation: As a rental to sci-fi and Vin Diesel fans.

Aside from some grain/noise, and a few low-volume scenes, this Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Yea it didn't strike me as a go to the theater movie...unless I had a free pass of course

Indeed



I approve of this. Saw it in the theaters because someone gave me their free movie money from an Amazon promotion () and enjoyed it...but the camera work was terrible for a good portion of the film. I lowered my score from 4 to 3.75 because of it.

The camerawork was fine. The director made a preview film (12 mins) on his own dime to pitch it to the producers in order to get the job. The studio was taking applications for the directors chair and asked applicants for a sneek peek of their vision. The producers loved his plan and pitched it to the studio, who also loved it and he got the job.

All Parties were in full agreement that it was to be shot like a military documentary, not a blockbuster.

The film achieved what it set out to do. Show war from the soldiers perspective. They describe it as a war film that just happens to have aliens as the enemy, not a sci-fi movie that has Marines.

Please dont post in this thread unless you can add something imtellugunt to the debate.

[iam1bearcat]

Summer Hours

good movie. great really. feels and looks real. certainly not a fast paced film. one where you see the constant motion of life, no matter what occurs and the differences in generations and changes in family, relationships and life that you can't really control but just deal with.

i really do enjoy the film, but never should have bought. i'll likely never watch it again. so, it'll get sold off to amazon.

i really love the cover of the blu-ray as well

worth seeing? yes.
for me, worth owning? no.

4/5

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“Babylon AD.”

[Show spoiler]As it is with any decent sci-fi movie, there’s a good amount of coolness to this film. From the grungy war-torn hoods of Russia to the sleek and sleazy streets of New York, we are plunged into a rather bleak-looking future with a lot of fantastic ideas and gizmos. It’s a fine setting to stage some gunfights, cagefights, a crazy snowmobile chase, and a smorgasbord of fine special effects (including a super-cool slow-motion missile exploding ).

Despite all its coolness, something about this film falls short. For which I blame the story. It starts off very promising, granting the main lead with strong characterization, and kicking off a journey that just sounds too cool to be true. As it goes on, however, the story proves to be unrefined (marketplace explodes, no reason given. Characters go to a refugee camp, no real reason is given. Not to mention, the ending seems rather inconclusive). It is especially unrefined in the area of thematic material; there are glimpses of brilliance as the film shows the rough and tough struggle of human survival, and generally paints the human race in a negative light. Unfortunately, without any specific focus or background, these generalizations just don’t hold much weight (it’s a theme better covered in “Children of Men”). There are many slick ideas in the film, and it is interesting to see how religion is trivialized toward the end. But for whatever reason, nothing really gels together the way it should, and the film just comes off as another typical dystopian flick.

For what it’s worth, the film is well-made, with slick photography and editing. A couple of scenes are annoyingly shakey, but I’ve seen worse (like “Battle LA” ). Acting is decent; Vin Diesel is the man and Michelle Yeoh is good. I never really liked Melanie Thierry or her character, but in retrospect, she did have her moments. Writing is okay. Production value is good, featuring plenty of cool sets, props, costumes, gadgets, vehicles, and cityscapes. Music is alright.

This movie was quite off-putting at first glance, but it’s actually not quite as bad as I remembered. It does make me want to read the original book, to see more of the story.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5) Increased from 2.5/5

Recommendation: As a rental to sci-fi and Vin Diesel fans.

Aside from some grain/noise, and a few low-volume scenes, this Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

I've only seen this one time, but I didn't like it that much. I'd probably go 3/5 at the highest.

Wonder what it would have been like without all the horror stories that happened to its development....

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The camerawork was fine. The director made a preview film (12 mins) on his own dime to pitch it to the producers in order to get the job. The studio was taking applications for the directors chair and asked applicants for a sneek peek of their vision. The producers loved his plan and pitched it to the studio, who also loved it and he got the job.

All Parties were in full agreement that it was to be shot like a military documentary, not a blockbuster.

The film achieved what it set out to do. Show war from the soldiers perspective. They describe it as a war film that just happens to have aliens as the enemy, not a sci-fi movie that has Marines.

Please dont post in this thread unless you can add something imtellugunt to the debate.

I was going to provide some sort of well thought out humorous response...but when I read your final sentence I started laughing too much and figured, "Oh screw it"

[volcomsocal]

Unkown - 2011

I saw the trailer for this when it first aired on tv and thought that it looked and felt similar to Taken, which I love. So, I thought that this would make a great Netflix rental.

I was right.

Although at most times, the pacing of the film is slower than Taken, it holds its own pretty well. This was a story that I was completely unaware of and lacked any knowledge of beforehand. Taken had a perfect formula of Liam Neeson, revenge, action, and a happy ending. Unknown is pretty much the same formula except with a completely different storyline. This movie felt A LOT longer than Taken, which necessarily isn't saying much... as Taken is a lot like a roller coaster. You make your way up a steep climb that is slow but only takes a minute, and then WHAM!!! You're flying at 65mph for the next hour and fifteen minutes, which only feels like an half an hour. It sure is a roller coaster.

Unknown, on the other hand, is a lot slower paced, and actually feels a lot longer than the hour and fifty minutes it actually is. But it definitely has it's share of action, car chases, fighting, and Liam Neeson kicking ass. There were moments here and there that seemed somewhat laughable... secondary characters' lines and fight sequences, and certain "techno-gizmos" that were used by the "baddies". But that was, for the most part, easily overseen. Unknown is a very good movie that has twists and turns to it, with a good storyline, great action sequences (especially the car chases), and good character development.

At times, I felt like the Bourne Trilogy had its imprints on it... which is a good thing. Cinematography was one thing I noticed that felt a little "Bourne-ish". Another was the car chase scenes... it definitely had a Bourne influence on it. While Unknown is no Bourne movie, it's a good action flick that is more than worthy of a rental.

PQ - 4/5
AQ - 4/5

4/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I've only seen this one time, but I didn't like it that much. I'd probably go 3/5 at the highest.

Wonder what it would have been like without all the horror stories that happened to its development....

I was wondering if that was the case (as it is with "Ultraviolet" and dozens of other bad ones ). You can kinda tell when a studio messes around with a film; they inject senseless action and SFX, and break up the story and pacing.

Looked it up on wikipedia and read:

Mathieu Kassovitz said that 20th Century Fox interfered throughout production, and he never had a chance to shoot a scene the way it was scripted, or the way he wanted it to be.

I'm not surprised.

[tanujdua]

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Unkown - 2011

I saw the trailer for this when it first aired on tv and thought that it looked and felt similar to Taken, which I love. So, I thought that this would make a great Netflix rental.

[Show spoiler]
I was right.

Although at most times, the pacing of the film is slower than Taken, it holds its own pretty well. This was a story that I was completely unaware of and lacked any knowledge of beforehand. Taken had a perfect formula of Liam Neeson, revenge, action, and a happy ending. Unknown is pretty much the same formula except with a completely different storyline. This movie felt A LOT longer than Taken, which necessarily isn't saying much... as Taken is a lot like a roller coaster. You make your way up a steep climb that is slow but only takes a minute, and then WHAM!!! You're flying at 65mph for the next hour and fifteen minutes, which only feels like an half an hour. It sure is a roller coaster.

Unknown, on the other hand, is a lot slower paced, and actually feels a lot longer than the hour and fifty minutes it actually is. But it definitely has it's share of action, car chases, fighting, and Liam Neeson kicking ass. There were moments here and there that seemed somewhat laughable... secondary characters' lines and fight sequences, and certain "techno-gizmos" that were used by the "baddies". But that was, for the most part, easily overseen. Unknown is a very good movie that has twists and turns to it, with a good storyline, great action sequences (especially the car chases), and good character development.

At times, I felt like the Bourne Trilogy had its imprints on it... which is a good thing. Cinematography was one thing I noticed that felt a little "Bourne-ish". Another was the car chase scenes... it definitely had a Bourne influence on it. While Unknown is no Bourne movie, it's a good action flick that is more than worthy of a rental.

PQ - 4/5
AQ - 4/5

4/5

Great read, I pretty much agree with you . Thought it was a slower paced Taken but still really good.

My favourite line is

[Show spoiler]I didn't forget everything. I remember how to kill you, *******.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Unkown - 2011

[Show spoiler]I saw the trailer for this when it first aired on tv and thought that it looked and felt similar to Taken, which I love. So, I thought that this would make a great Netflix rental.

I was right.

Although at most times, the pacing of the film is slower than Taken, it holds its own pretty well. This was a story that I was completely unaware of and lacked any knowledge of beforehand. Taken had a perfect formula of Liam Neeson, revenge, action, and a happy ending. Unknown is pretty much the same formula except with a completely different storyline. This movie felt A LOT longer than Taken, which necessarily isn't saying much... as Taken is a lot like a roller coaster. You make your way up a steep climb that is slow but only takes a minute, and then WHAM!!! You're flying at 65mph for the next hour and fifteen minutes, which only feels like an half an hour. It sure is a roller coaster.

Unknown, on the other hand, is a lot slower paced, and actually feels a lot longer than the hour and fifty minutes it actually is. But it definitely has it's share of action, car chases, fighting, and Liam Neeson kicking ass. There were moments here and there that seemed somewhat laughable... secondary characters' lines and fight sequences, and certain "techno-gizmos" that were used by the "baddies". But that was, for the most part, easily overseen. Unknown is a very good movie that has twists and turns to it, with a good storyline, great action sequences (especially the car chases), and good character development.

At times, I felt like the Bourne Trilogy had its imprints on it... which is a good thing. Cinematography was one thing I noticed that felt a little "Bourne-ish". Another was the car chase scenes... it definitely had a Bourne influence on it. While Unknown is no Bourne movie, it's a good action flick that is more than worthy of a rental.

PQ - 4/5
AQ - 4/5

4/5

I was very much anticipating this movie before it came out. Looked like it would be really good from the trailers, and I also was one who thought it would be somewhat like Taken (because that's how it was marketed...incorrectly marketed I feel).

But once I saw it it was neither Taken-lite or very good (imo). It didn't jive with me. Neeson elevated it above its actual quality, the movie itself instead of bringing the it brought the
I think I gave it a 3/5; mildly enjoyable, but nowhere near what I hoped for.

The best part of the movie was when I walked out of the theater and looked at my cousin and said, "That movie...was

[Show spoiler]about corn.

"



Edit: I found my "review" from January in this thread, it was a 3.5/5 not a 3/5

Originally Posted by Diesel

Saw Unknown today.

It was enjoyable but not as good as I had hoped

Liam Neeson kicks some butt (but not much); the story is moderately interesting (but I called the twist from quite early on); January Jones and Frank Langella seemed to be there for the pay check; the action wasn't very well filmed; you could always tell what was going on but you couldn't appreciate it; there is a minor character that is introduced who serves virtually no purpose and was not needed to waste screen time on him.

Rent it one day, don't buy it.

Rating - 3.5/5

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I was wondering if that was the case (as it is with "Ultraviolet" and dozens of other bad ones ). You can kinda tell when a studio messes around with a film; they inject senseless action and SFX, and break up the story and pacing.

Looked it up on wikipedia and read:



I'm not surprised.

You would think the nitwits geniuses running the studios would have figured out by now every time they get overly involved the movie tends to not turn out well and often just flat out sucks....on top of doing poorly at the box office.

The culprit is most of the time Fox
Though the others throw their hats into the ring...WB tried it most recently with Lantern