The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

It is?!

Nonstop f-bombs never really did it for me. I think all curse words lose their flavor when used too casually and too frequently.

Depends if they're used right, it's been proven that using the F-Bomb is a good way to lose stress, hence why I find it mostly well done in Reservoir Dogs

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I agree that Smith's earlier roles (in "ID4," "MIB," etc) were very ego-driven, but I think he has genuinely matured as an actor, and has pulled off these drama roles decently.

That's just my view though; ya'll know that I've never been a good judge of acting.

Let's relate actors to musicians for no reason whatsoever:

Nearly all of my favorite bands have vocalists who can't sing. I like them because it works for me. I listen to very few people who can actually hold a note.

It's the same with acting to some extent and Smith is someone I enjoy watching in most of his stuff. Christopher Walken is so over the top that you always know he's acting, but I love watching him. I'll watch Die Hard even though it's just a vehicle for Bruce Willis.

That brings up another question I was pondering this morning:

What makes a movie good or great - for me?

I don't have the answer.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Depends if they're used right, it's been proven that using the F-Bomb is a good way to lose stress, hence why I find it mostly well done in Reservoir Dogs

Good point. I have definitely lost stress in real life by dropping f-bombs on inanimate objects and video games.

Originally Posted by Steve46

Let's relate actors to musicians for no reason whatsoever:

Nearly all of my favorite bands have vocalists who can't sing. I like them because it works for me. I listen to very few people who can actually hold a note.

It's the same with acting to some extent and Smith is someone I enjoy watching in most of his stuff. Christopher Walken is so over the top that you always know he's acting, but I love watching him. I'll watch Die Hard even though it's just a vehicle for Bruce Willis.

That brings up another question I was pondering this morning:

What makes a movie good or great - for me?

I don't have the answer.

Good point too. In fact, it was in surfdude's signature block once, a quote along the lines of "nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

It is?!

oops forgot to put in my sarcastic smile

I guess "pleasant" isn't the right word. "edgy" is. I don't feel bad or dirty when i'm watching it, because my mind is thikning "yeah, a lot of F bombs, but its realistic....realistic wins always!"

[Diesel]

I can't think of I Am Legend without instantly going to the scene where

[Show spoiler]Sam is attacked and he has to kill her

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Steve46

That brings up another question I was pondering this morning:

What makes a movie good or great - for me?

I don't have the answer.

for me?

great
-multiple viewings required
-typically a mind bender, needs multiple viewings + multiple post-it notes on living room wall (hence why i'm single)
-surreal feel is also a pattern of great films for me (Mulholland, 2001, Dark City, Triangle, The Shining, Vanilla Sky, Double Life Veronique, Last Year Marienbad, Memento, Eyes Wide Shut, Wizard of Oz, etc) = I like dreamy/subjective stuff

good
-entertaining films that do NOT have the above stuff

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

for me?

great
-multiple viewings required
-typically a mind bender, needs multiple viewings + multiple post-it notes on living room wall (hence why i'm single)
-surreal feel is also a pattern of great films for me (Mulholland, 2001, Vanilla Sky, Double Life Veronique, Last Year Marienbad, Eyes Wide Shut, Wizard of Oz, etc) = I like dreamy stuff
Non-superhero

good
-entertaining films that do NOT have the above stuff

Fixed

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

IMHO, I thought Smith was awful in this role. Its not a good match for him. He's good in other roles when he's surrounded by others, so he can beat his chest and do the whole "look how awesome I am" ego dance. Other than that specific type of role, he hasn't much range as an actor. Here, he was helpless and naked. Tom Hanks in Cast Away and Cillian Murphy in 28 Days Later already perfected the "guy all alone" role before Smith, which instantly drew comparisons and thus made Smith's performance even more cringing.

just my 2 cents

Three words. Sam Rockwell, Moon.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

That brings up another question I was pondering this morning:

What makes a movie good or great - for me?

I don't have the answer.

All films are flawed to me, so a good film is a not so flawed film, a great film is a film where the flaws don't bother me due to the strength of the film

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I agree that Smith's earlier roles (in "ID4," "MIB," etc) were very ego-driven, but I think he has genuinely matured as an actor, and has pulled off these drama roles decently.

I always see that rowdy comedian bubbling under the surface. Like its hard for him to keep it contained. Maybe I am just seeing things that arent there, though.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Three words. Sam Rockwell, Moon.

we need to chat about that. If I recall, I still think I only gave it 3.5 stars. Had huge expectations. Then throw in the brazenness of emulating 2001 and that was a formula for disaster. Rockwell was great. I think I need a second viewing, particularly to understand

[Show spoiler]what the heck was going on with the multiple Sam's and all those family transmissions. Specificially, which Sam was who and after reading conflicting theories about what was going on

. second viewing is in order, I think.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I always see that rowdy comedian bubbling under the surface. Like its hard for him to keep it contained. Maybe I am just seeing things that arent there, though.

+1 billion. LIke you though, I confess it may be all in my head too!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fixed

nice! you guys never got over that one day when I gave TDK 3/5 stars

i got bullied into changing my score to 3.5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

It feels like FOREVER since I watched a movie or wrote a review for this thread (though it really wasn't THAT long ago since I screened Chronicle a while back)

Me too. I have been humping my way through the Battlestar Galactica TV show. I had never seen it before. 75 episodes total, so I wont see a movie for a little bit longer. Darn good show.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

nice! you guys never got over that one day when I gave TDK 3/5 stars

i got bullied into changing my score to 3.5

Peer pressure

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Me too. I have been humping my way through the Battlestar Galactica TV show. I had never seen it before. 75 episodes total, so I wont see a movie for a little bit longer. Darn good show.

How many episodes in are you?

My brief amount of free time lately for watching has been on LOST, I've made it to the end of Season 4. But I'm going to put Season 5 on hold for a bit and watch some movies next week on my day(s) off.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

we need to chat about that. If I recall, I still think I only gave it 3.5 stars. Had huge expectations. Then throw in the brazenness of emulating 2001 and that was a formula for disaster. Rockwell was great. I think I need a second viewing, particularly to understand

[Show spoiler]what the heck was going on with the multiple Sam's and all those family transmissions. Specificially, which Sam was who and after reading conflicting theories about what was going on

. second viewing is in order, I think.

That was my only real point.

That said, you really DO need a second viewing. If you didnt quite grasp

[Show spoiler]the mutiple Sams and the "controlled" and falsley delayed family communications, you missed out on the HEAVINESS and the poignancy of Sams plight. Dude, you gotta see it again. NOTHING about it is a ripoff of 2001 IMO. Its a straight story about a man, corporate greed, and ethics. It aint an art film at all IMO. Its basic as heck, but really touching.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Peer pressure



How many episodes in are you?

My brief amount of free time lately for watching has been on LOST, I've made it to the end of Season 4. But I'm going to put Season 5 on hold for a bit and watch some movies next week on my day(s) off.

I just finished season 2 (of 4). But I think the second two seasons have more episodes per.

I think you'd dig the show. The Drama between the humans and the Cylons is similar to the tension between the Losties and The Others.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

That was my only real point.

That said, you really DO need a second viewing. If you didnt quite grasp

[Show spoiler]the mutiple Sams and the "controlled" and falsley delayed family communications, you missed out on the HEAVINESS and the poignancy of Sams plight. Dude, you gotta see it again. NOTHING about it is a ripoff of 2001 IMO. Its a straight story about a man, corporate greed, and ethics. It aint an art film at all IMO. Its basic as heck, but really touching.

His alarm was pretty cool in the context of the film.

I think the 2001 comparisons are mainly due to 1) GERTY and 2) the use of models.

[Steve46]

46. Jaws (1975)
Thriller, 124 minutes
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Richard Dreyfuss, Roy Scheider and Robert Shaw



As I continue working on this 100 movies project, I am realizing that my tastes are all over the map. It ranges from 50's black and white dramas set in one room, to foreign language films, to recent blockbusters. In a way, I'm happy to find that I'm open to all types of film. Today's entry falls into the blockbuster category and was the highest-grossing movie ever made in its day.

I remember a conversation with friends when I was 13 telling me that I had to see Jaws. They talked about the shark more than anything, and people being torn apart. I caved and ended up seeing the movie and then I read the book. There are plenty of people who have never lost that fascination for deadly creatures. Would we have Shark Week without Jaws? Why do we want to watch such a creature?

Actually, that's not why I like Jaws.

Jaws works for me because of the quality of the acting and the suspense created by wondering where the shark will strike next. The first hour of the movie sets everything up. Although there's nothing particularly bad about the first half, it's far from remarkable. We see a few attacks and meet the main characters.

Chief Brody (Scheider) is my favorite character. He's intelligent, sensible, practical and calm under pressure. Hooper (Dreyfuss) is a marine biologist who thinks the problem can be solved through the use of modern equipment. The most colorful character is Quint (Shaw), who is experienced and outspoken. This group ends up tracking the shark on Quint's boat and it's here that the movie really takes off.

The movie was made at a time when special effects had to be created by using models and machines rather than CGI, so the shark doesn't look at all realistic by modern standards. Spielberg did his best to overcome those limitations by showing the creature as little as possible. We are shown the attacks, but the camera focuses on the victim rather than dwelling on the shark itself. The fear exists in our minds and we fill in the gaps.

The best scene in the movie takes place on the boat. All three men are drinking. Hooper and Quint begin showing each other their scars. It's a moment of release and humor while they wait for the shark to appear. Brody looks bemused by the whole exchange, but it's clear that the group is bonding. In a lesser movie, all we would see is action and more frequent and bloodier attacks.

Another thing which should be mentioned is the music. John Williams created such a simple score, and yet we will never forget those two notes every time the shark is poised to attack. How often has it been used over the years, I wonder? The movie picked up two Oscars in the technical categories, and also won for Best Original Score.

Jaws deserves its place in movie history. I hope nobody ever suggests remaking it to update the effects. The plot is simple and predictable, but the execution is superb.

If you like Jaws:

Spielberg knows how to make movies with mass appeal, and I would place Close Encounters of the Third Kind in that category. Like Jaws, it stars Richard Dreyfuss.

I must admit that I do have some sympathy for the shark in Jaws. It's not as if the shark sneaks out of the water and breaks into people's homes to kill them; it's simply feeding and trying to survive in its natural habitat. The same can be said of Jurassic Park. The most recent notable movie involving humans tracking some kind of creature is Super 8. It's not perfect, but Spielberg is named among the production team and it does feel like something he would make.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I can't think of I Am Legend without instantly going to the scene where

[Show spoiler]Sam is attacked and he has to kill her

Yep, I know someone who will never watch it again because of that scene.