The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

If I remember correctly, didn't he get knocked unconscious by something in the film while traveling? Or was it just before he began moving even more into the future? I don't recall if we ever saw him get wet from rain, burnt from sun or anything else while traveling. If none of the above happened, you would be correct, and that sucker should have ended up in deep space when he stopped traveling.

This movie randomly came up in my class yesterday. The professor was making some sort of example, that I don't remember because he rambles so much, and he said "Its like that HG Wells movie The Time Machine. Who's seen it?" I was the only one who raised my hand, everyone else looked like, "What the hell are you talking about? "

Yep, I remember I got you to see it.

The man did experience some variances in temperature when the molten rock washed over him and cooled (although the a-bomb scene is pretty darn cool, it's pretty silly that it just spontaneously causes a volcanic eruption. Sillier yet that the guy wasn't even in the machine when it happened, but he survived it all ).

I would say that he should have endured more extreme sensations. But one thing I did like about the remake is that he was always inside a temporal bubble whenever he travelled, and everything inside the bubble was unaffected by what was outside. It makes sense to me, because traveling through time should not affect space (even in the original film, they explain this, when he sends the model forward and it disappears, and everybody wonders why they can't touch or see it). It's also a convenient storytelling mechanic to keep the character safe while going through all this stuff.

I think he was knocked out in the remake, but not in the original, if I remember right. I don't remember how it happened in the book.

Regarding the class, it's sad that not many people have seen classics like this. I've actually been a little peeved these days, cause there's a few people I've met who refuse to see the original "POTA" because seeing a film with talking apes doesn't interest them.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

hmmm I'll have to watch this now. I am somewhat familiar with Physics (studied in college, no expert but somewhat knowledgeable) and can tell you that future time travel is theoretically possible, but not past time travel, at least according to Einstein's equations. Picture a bouncing basketball on a train, that bounces up and down every second and hits the dudes hand on the train every second. But that is ON THE TRAIN. What does it look like to US OFF THE SIDE OF THE TRACK? The ball isn't going up and down! Its zig-zagging down the track! Its going up and down every 1.1 seconds (according to our clock)! The dude is (technically) traveling into the future. Why? Because in a year from now (TO US), it'll be 13 months (TO HIM). In reality, it wouldn't be 13 months to him, it would be more like 12.000000000000000000000001 months, so the difference wouldn't be noticed. To have a big difference, the train would have to be going at about 185,000 miles per hour. But the analogy doesn't change: the faster you go, the more the basketball zigs, and the longer each "second" is to us on the side of the track.
Planet of the Apes (1968) intro where Heston talks for the first few minutes actually is pretty accurate.
That movie sounds like its discussing relative reference frames, which is heading in the right direction. I'll have to check it out.

I probably have far less experience in this field than you, but yep, I have heard of this theory before (time dilation, where time differs between two observers who are moving relative to each other. Some heavy-duty Einsteinian stuff concerning the relationship between time and (curved) space). "POTA" (both the book and the first film) did indeed use this as its basis. I do see this as plausible, especially in regards to deep space travel.

I also remember "The Source Code" getting into some interesting ideas about

[Show spoiler]creating alternate universes to replicate a past event, allowing the characters to relive it over and over again.

"Primer" and "Timecrimes" handle the issue pretty respectfully, since the characters only travel in small short bursts, with machines that look and operate in a plausible manner. I thought it was funny that in "Primer" they built the machine and didn't even know what it did.

I'm more skeptical of the ideas in "The Time Machine," "BTTF," and other such stories, where a person could jump to any time he wanted just by flicking a switch. Powered by a crystal, or a flux capacitor, or some other magical thing. Uh huh.

Chances are that it may be possible and we simply haven't discovered the science behind such possibilities. But then, does that mean there are time travelers among us...?

[Al_The_Strange]

“The Time Machine” 2002.

Here it is, over a hundred years since the original book was published and over thirty years since the (rather decent) original film. By this time, Hollywood is able to blow a big wad for this film, sprucing up the production value, throwing in a couple of big-name actors, and ramping up the special effects to the Nth degree. Of course, such ambition requires the sacrifice of story, characterization, themes, and original thought; it never fails.

To be fair, this remake has its moments. The special effects are indeed gorgeous, and it is very cool and imaginative to watch entire cityscapes and landscapes mold and evolve instantly before our eyes. The moon cracks open, a lot of morlocks get killed (and some get nuked somehow), and there’s plenty of other cool sights throughout. Combined with a little comedy and a slight bit of “Mummy”-style adventurism, the film certainly entertains once it gets going.

The story for this has been modified. There are some things I like about this version (SFX and action notwithstanding); I do like the look of this time machine, and the way it forms a bubble when it’s on the go; I like its views of the future; I especially love its enhanced time-lapsing photography (much more refined than from the original film). However, a lot of liberties are taken, some of which are pretty stupid. They changed the main character’s motivation, for better or for worse. The Eloi have turned into some tribal people living in basket-looking things in the walls of a valley (a very far cry from the sheepish people described in both the book and original film). They stripped away the utopian aspects and the symbiotic relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks, removing all sense of duality and replacing it with mere tribal warfare. They made the Morlocks immune to sunlight (WTF?!!). They gifted the Morlocks with some kind of “Ubermorlock,” giving the main character a massive boss fight. But I think the biggest problem is that the film no longer focuses on human destiny (and there is certainly no mention of war). Instead, the only moral presented is that one cannot change the past. I suppose you could conclude that the future is not written in stone. But these viewpoints are substantially less intelligent than the concepts presented in the original story and film. Even if you take this newer film on its own merits, you won’t be walking out with much of an impact; it’s a shallow adventure story overall, and little else.

Ultimately, I don’t mind the first half of the film, but the second half kinda sucks.

The film has solid photography and editing. Acting is okay; Guy Pearce does what he can. Samantha Mumba is lovely, but like all the Eloi in this film, terribly uncharacteristic. Orlando Jones makes a semi-pointless cameo appearance. Jeremy Irons plays an average megalomaniac villain here. Writing is pretty iffy all around, especially given the changes to the story. The production value is high, featuring lots of nice sets, props, and costumes (and the new time machine is pretty darn cool-looking). Music is okay at best (I hate the tribal songs).

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

Recommendation: Not really. Rent it for the SFX if at all interested.

If they Blu-Ray both films, I would buy them.

[Al_The_Strange]

The next greatest blind buy I'm watching is "Kingdom of War."

The runtime is 332 minutes.

That's SIX freaking hours...

Expect a review five hours from now...

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I knew you wouldnt let me off easy

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Show spoiler]

[/spoiler]

A Magic moment for me in the theater.

on Fish tank:

do you believe that she

[Show spoiler]kidnapped his daughter

because she (1)

[Show spoiler]was enacting revenge on him for abandoning her / lying to her

or (2)

[Show spoiler]she truly was trying to save the daughter from what she felt was a real dangerous man.

[Show spoiler] on first viewing, I was thinking (1), but then on second viewing I was thinking (2) because when she watched the home video she found at the house, she saw how he had his daughter dance/sing for the camera, AS HE HAD MIA DANCE FOR THE CAMERA...and then thought "this man is going to terrorize her like he did me...i have to save her". of course, the only issue with (2) is that she brought the daughter back...which supports (1): just make his suffer a bit then return the daughter in a few hours

still am blown away with this film! reminded me of Revanche with the dramatic tension and that

[Show spoiler] both Mia and him had a secret affair, like Alex and the cop's wife had a secret affair

and obviously reminded me of 400 Blows since

[Show spoiler]both Mia and the kid in 400 Blows are portrayed as kids who inevitably, through no fault of their own, are delinquent runaways, because of parental neglect

[surfdude12]

Revanche (viewing #10? 12?)

Film: 5/5
-I had 5 girls over to my house (and 1 dude), so recommended this

[Show spoiler]Here is the funny part: when the cop's wife goes "come to my house tonight" to Alex. the dude goes "Oh come on! That's so dumb!!! Why would she do that???". The girls were silent. THey knew she wanted to get pregnant. Its funny how women know women's minds better I enjoyed listenting to them tell the dude how dumb he was later on when he was proven wrong

-I've said so much about this, there's not much more to say
-incredible parallels in this film:

[Show spoiler](a) both Alex and Grandfather have photos of their dead female partners on the wall of their rooms in the house, mourning them, (b) both Alex and the cop carry photos of the girl who was shot, both mourn her, and both blame themself

-holds up very well to repeated viewings
-an example of awesome filmmaking: in one scene, the camera follows alex on his motorcycle driving around curves in the road. the camera pans to a cross stuck in the ground in the woods and focuses on it. 30 minutes later, when

[Show spoiler]he robs the bank

, he drives he car into the woods at that exact same spot and the camera focuses on the same cross with the exact same framing! A+ direction

PQ and AQ: 4.5/5

[surfdude12]

The New World

Film: 5/5
-loved the film overall
-it was very meditative, which I like. I felt like I could watch it and just be quiet and still. the upward shots at the base of trees, with the sun piercing between tree branches was breathtaking
-the plot was fascinating: I'm always interested in historical films of this era, especially ones involving the europeans landing in the U.S. The Pochantus pairing with

[Show spoiler]Farrell

may have seemed unorthodox but it still felt natural. LIke Walkabout, there were themes of communication. Unlike Walkabout, where people didnt bother to communicate nonverbally, here they did.
-like Thin Red Line, I can tell that Mallick is projecting some of his personal views/opinions into the narrative/etc and the film is very existential, which I like. This is why I would much prefer to watch this again, over, say Last of the Mohicans, which was much more of a mainstream, Hollywood, straightforward, run of themill film. Not knocking Mohicans, but just saying, FOR ME, I prefer New World
-This is my 3rd Mallick film. I loved Thin Red Line and this one, I didn't care for Days of Heaven, but will watch it again.

PQ and AQ: decent, 4/5 if I remember correctly.

[surfdude12]

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Film: 4/5
-I remember reading the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and then see "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". Am I missing something or did the first name get changed in the title from book to film?
-It showed in the film: I thought the first half was great, as it showed a lot about Charlie, but once they got to the factory, Charlie was almost never to be heard from again. Of course, I realize that there are more characters now and he can't be the center of attention like he was, but I really felt that the film almost ignored him in the second half.
-The film reminded me of Wizard of Oz a bit, with the awesome fantasy set up that looked very theatrical, which I love!!! I don't need a CGI remake for this reason! I like films that have a (INTENTIONAL) theatrical-looking back set. GWTW is like that too. It makes me feel like I'm sitting in the theater, not my living room.
-As a kid, I worshipped the film, so my adult bit&hing about it will always lose out to my childhood memories of getting scared MORE THAN ANY HORROR FILM EVER IN MY LIFE at what happened to the kids in the factory!!

PQ and AQ: 3/5

[surfdude12]

Cronos

Film: 4/5
-very good film. opening sequence shows a 1500's background story on what the Cronos is and what its powers are. Then of course, we flash forward to late 20th century, where Cronos device is found again. I love these films: which start with an ancient/old shot of some magical/mythical object and then flash forward to current time where that object reappears. Stargate is an example that comes to mind: they showed a 1930's shot of it being found and then flash forward to current time
-great direction and acting, although low budget, so dont expect million dollar CGI. this is great because of script.

PQ and AQ: 4/5. criterion did good again

[surfdude12]

Diving Bell and the Butterfly (DVD)

Film: 5/5
-thanks for recommending it everyone
-one of the best films I've seen in a few years
-incredible direction, with 1st person viewpoint of a paralyzed man trying to recover.
-a script that is so perfect it could only be based on a true story
-can't wait to snag the blu-ray

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

[Show spoiler]
Film: 4/5
-I remember reading the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and then see "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". Am I missing something or did the first name get changed in the title from book to film?
-It showed in the film: I thought the first half was great, as it showed a lot about Charlie, but once they got to the factory, Charlie was almost never to be heard from again. Of course, I realize that there are more characters now and he can't be the center of attention like he was, but I really felt that the film almost ignored him in the second half.
-The film reminded me of Wizard of Oz a bit, with the awesome fantasy set up that looked very theatrical, which I love!!! I don't need a CGI remake for this reason! I like films that have a (INTENTIONAL) theatrical-looking back set. GWTW is like that too. It makes me feel like I'm sitting in the theater, not my living room.
-As a kid, I worshipped the film, so my adult bit&hing about it will always lose out to my childhood memories of getting scared MORE THAN ANY HORROR FILM EVER IN MY LIFE at what happened to the kids in the factory!!

PQ and AQ: 3/5

Probably still my favorite musical. The dialogue is hilarious.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Cronos

[Show spoiler]
Film: 4/5
-very good film. opening sequence shows a 1500's background story on what the Cronos is and what its powers are. Then of course, we flash forward to late 20th century, where Cronos device is found again. I love these films: which start with an ancient/old shot of some magical/mythical object and then flash forward to current time where that object reappears. Stargate is an example that comes to mind: they showed a 1930's shot of it being found and then flash forward to current time
-great direction and acting, although low budget, so dont expect million dollar CGI. this is great because of script.

PQ and AQ: 4/5. criterion did good again

Yep, it's a darn good story.

[surfdude12]

Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest & Girl Who Played With Fire

I'll review them together since I have pretty much the same complaints:
-I rated GWTDD 5/5. It was one of my favorite films that year.
-I rate both of these 3/5. Dissappointed after GWTDD
-my complaints are pretty simple - 2 of them: (1)

[Show spoiler]the girl (name?) with the tattoo and the press guy (name?) who worked together in the first film never worked again together (in person) in either of these 2 films. I realize they're covering the books, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the strongest reasons the first film was great (the two of them working together) was gone in the next 2 films, and (2) the second two films really had little or no plot of their own (jhiggy correct me, I haven't read the books), but merely borrowed their plot from the first film. a lot of them went back to the events of the first film. so in a way, they were just extensions of the first film. problem with that - I already saw the first film..and it ended

PQ and AQ: great, 4/5

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Probably still my favorite musical. The dialogue is hilarious.

Loved Wilder's entrance: when he

[Show spoiler] comes out of the factory limping with a cane, then falls over, does a front roll and stands up unassisted! Genius jokester! We already know in 5 seconds who Willy WOnka is! I saw in the extras that Wilder himself came up with this idea!!! wow, huh?

Yep, it's a darn good story.

my friend from Mexico came over to watch it. he was telling me the STREET NAMES in the film. it was freaky. he was scared out of his mind. probably b/c it hit close to home. can you imagine watching a vampire horror film made in your backyard?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest & Girl Who Played With Fire

[Show spoiler]
I'll review them together since I have pretty much the same complaints:
-I rated GWTDD 5/5. It was one of my favorite films that year.
-I rate both of these 3/5. Dissappointed after GWTDD
-my complaints are pretty simple - 2 of them: (1)

[Show spoiler]the girl (name?) with the tattoo and the press guy (name?) who worked together in the first film never worked again together (in person) in either of these 2 films. I realize they're covering the books, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the strongest reasons the first film was great (the two of them working together) was gone in the next 2 films, and (2) the second two films really had little or no plot of their own (jhiggy correct me, I haven't read the books), but merely borrowed their plot from the first film. a lot of them went back to the events of the first film. so in a way, they were just extensions of the first film. problem with that - I already saw the first film..and it ended

PQ and AQ: great, 4/5

I still gotta watch these. I'm finishing up the first book, so I'll probably tackle the trilogy this week.

The book for "GwtDD" was fine and dandy, but a little too long for me. Funnily enough, for both the book and the movie, I found it too slow in the first half, then thrilling in the second. It's pretty interesting though.

I admire Stieg Larsson for his ideals, I just find his writing style and storytelling abilities a little iffy (he was a journalist primarily anyway). It's a shame he passed away before seeing the success of his novels (much less before being able to write more fiction and hone his skills).

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Loved Wilder's entrance: when he

[Show spoiler] comes out of the factory limping with a cane, then falls over, does a front roll and stands up unassisted! Genius jokester! We already know in 5 seconds who Willy WOnka is! I saw in the extras that Wilder himself came up with this idea!!! wow, huh?

my friend from Mexico came over to watch it. he was telling me the STREET NAMES in the film. it was freaky. he was scared out of his mind. probably b/c it hit close to home. can you imagine watching a vampire horror film made in your backyard?

I wish I could make an entrance like Willy.

It would be freaky to see a film like that in a familiar place.

I was quite surprised to see the ending for "The Omen III" taking place at Fountains Abbey, which I've been to hundreds of times.

[surfdude12]

Inception

Film: 3/5
-The problem with this film is this - the dream genre cannot be explicit, it must be implicit/subliminal to be effective. Just look at successful Dream Genre films - Last Year at Marienbad, Mulholland Drive, Eyes Wide Shut, etc. ONce this film started to TALK ABOUT DREAMING it lost the power of implicit/subliminal theme of dreaming that is common to all dream genre films.
-Its the "some things are best left unsaid" rule. Kind of like a guy going up to a girl and saying "I want to make out with you"...it would be much more effective for him to go up to her and tell her that by the way he looks at her!!! subliminal > explicit
-of course, the reason for the "explicit, not implicit" rule is that making the dream theme explicit limits the imagination of the viewer. its like putting a dog on a 100 foot leash. why put it on any leash?? let it go!!!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Inception

[Show spoiler]
Film: 3/5
-The problem with this film is this - the dream genre cannot be explicit, it must be implicit/subliminal to be effective. Just look at successful Dream Genre films - Last Year at Marienbad, Mulholland Drive, Eyes Wide Shut, etc. ONce this film started to TALK ABOUT DREAMING it lost the power of implicit/subliminal theme of dreaming that is common to all dream genre films.
-Its the "some things are best left unsaid" rule. Kind of like a guy going up to a girl and saying "I want to make out with you"...it would be much more effective for him to go up to her and tell her that by the way he looks at her!!! subliminal > explicit

"Inception" might have been interesting if it had a twist ending where you never knew they were dreaming until the end. Then again, I'm not sure if that would have worked, given the rigid four-tiered-dream-structure of the plot, and the overall premise.

Still, I find it far less comparable to "Mulholland Dr" and other such movies, and much more comparable to "Dreamscape" and "Paprika," where dreaming is part of the sci-fi concept and had to be addressed. Works for me.

[surfdude12]

Secretariat
Film: 2/5
-A film about a woman trying to overcome obstacles, instead of about the horse. We see the horse for perhaps 20 minutes. The owner? We see her for the other 1 hour 40 minutes. We see all the incompetent people around her: husband, dad, trainer, jockey, rivals, who all worship the ground she walks on. We see her daughter going through a hippie phase for about 15-20 minutes? Why? I have no idea. The horse actually racing and training? About half of the time devoted to the daughter's hippie phase. Rest my case.
-this movie pis$ed me off because I love the Secretariat story and feel like it was handled by a bunch of incompetents.
-then again, maybe I'm an uninformed wind bag

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"Inception" might have been interesting if it had a twist ending where you never knew they were dreaming until the end. Then again, I'm not sure if that would have worked, given the rigid four-tiered-dream-structure of the plot, and the overall premise.

true, this is probably just an example of me not liking it because its not similar to the dream films I like

Still, I find it far less comparable to "Mulholland Dr" and other such movies, and much more comparable to "Dreamscape" and "Paprika," where dreaming is part of the sci-fi concept and had to be addressed. Works for me.

I havent' seen those films Al, I'll have to check them out. Thanks.

[surfdude12]

King Kong (1933)

Film: 3.5/5
-IMO, clearly inferior to Jackon's version, and here is why:

[Show spoiler]Jackson's version conforms to the original Beauty and the Beast fable. In B&TB, Belle eventually warms up to the beast!! But what does Fay Wray do? She's screaming like a nutcase the whole film! She never warms up to Kong, and since she never warms up to Kong, neither do we. Perhaps that is the point of Kong '33: to show sympathy toward KOng because nobody warms up to him. But I just personally prefer Kong '05 because it more closely follows the B&TB fable. And B&TB is clearly a centerpiece of the story, as it is referenced over and over in the film, so I don't think one can say "well, B&TB isn't that important". its the closing line of the film! also: upon returning driscoll said "Beauty and the Beast! Yes! Hit it from that angle boys!" What he shoudl have said in Kong '33 was "Beauty and the B!tch, hit it from that angle boys! This girl ain't never gonna warm up to that beast!" Also: the special effects make this possible. Kong's facial reactions to Watts when she is juggling/dancing/etc, go from "you *****! stop that shi%!" to "Hmmm! that's actually some good shi%!" to later on when he rescues her "me like me some Naomi watts lovin!!!!"

-in full fairness I should disclose: i have been obsessed with Naomi Watts since age 27
-a few other weak points:

[Show spoiler]the captain of the ship in Kong '33 seems PERFECTLY HAPPY to be going to an unchartered island. he never questions why he's being told to go there, never even second guesses it when told. also, Driscoll NEVER films on the island (other than a brief native shot at the shore)! say what? you come all this way to film on the island and then...forget to bring the camera on the island?....ok...

PQ and AQ were ok, but not great, even for '33

[surfdude12]

21 Grams

Film: 2/5
-I love the director in OTHER FILMS (Babel)
-I love the achronological sequencing technique in OTHER FILMS (Babel, Memento)
-But in THIS FILM? wow, the filming achronological sequence fell flat!!!! yuck
-the plot was ok and penn/watts are always good, but whoever wrote the script and ok'd the achronological sequence should be shot