The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Dudes, I just watched The Hobbit!

[Show spoiler]from 1977

As expected, this old animated feature caters more to children, so it's filled up with some cringe-worthy lightheartedness and lots of god-awful singing.

Regardless, this little film did offer a few surprises. The visuals and art design is decent, and there are times when the film hints at just how epic, mythic, and awe-inspiring this story could be (and chances are that it will be when Peter Jackson's films come out ).

Even though this film is only 79 minutes long, it managed to pack in all the major plot points that I remember from the book. It does skimp out on a lot of things, but shows the bare minimum to constitute the story using the bare minimum Middle Earth lore and the bare minimum characterizations. Overall, it's an adequate adaptation of the story, but it goes to show how strong the original story is rather than the film itself. Once again, I'm left considering how much depth, detail, and overall breathing room PJ will likely insert into his adaptations.

This production looks pretty cheap. Artwork is not quite as gaudy as Ralph Bakshi's LOTR, but it's not as smooth either. At times it looks weird, ugly, and stilted. The best that can be said is that the production designs match up pretty well with the original story. There are even times when I felt the movie showed exactly what I imagined while reading the book. However, the film does have a few bad design choices: Gollum looks like a freaking salamander, the spiders all look like Popeye's pappy, and Smaug looks like he has a giant rat's head.

It's an okay cartoon overall, and chances are that kids would love it. For me, all it does is hype me up for PJ's upcoming adaptation more and more. Now that I've refreshed my memory of the story and events, I can definitely get a feeling for how the new films will turn out...and so far they look perfect!

As for this stupid cartoon...

3/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: In the ages to come, this film shall be smote and cast out by the awesome power of Peter Jackson's Hobbit films!


...in other words...nah...

[P@t_Mtl]

The Addams Family (1991)

Another movie that for me is much better than the TV series it was based on. I never was a fan of the TV series, fun it dull and very un-funny, I prefered The Munsters as a series. The reason why I wanted to see this movie back in 1991 was for Christopher Lloyd. What a good move it was. as soon as the laserdisc became available I bought it and of course got the DVD a decade later. Raul Julia, Angelica Huston and Christopher are amazing but it was Christina Ricci who really stole the show. The movie is funny/morbid in a way that is almost impossible to imagine.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Dudes, I just watched The Hobbit!

[Show spoiler]from 1977

As expected, this old animated feature caters more to children, so it's filled up with some cringe-worthy lightheartedness and lots of god-awful singing.

Regardless, this little film did offer a few surprises. The visuals and art design is decent, and there are times when the film hints at just how epic, mythic, and awe-inspiring this story could be (and chances are that it will be when Peter Jackson's films come out ).

Even though this film is only 79 minutes long, it managed to pack in all the major plot points that I remember from the book. It does skimp out on a lot of things, but shows the bare minimum to constitute the story using the bare minimum Middle Earth lore and the bare minimum characterizations. Overall, it's an adequate adaptation of the story, but it goes to show how strong the original story is rather than the film itself. Once again, I'm left considering how much depth, detail, and overall breathing room PJ will likely insert into his adaptations.

This production looks pretty cheap. Artwork is not quite as gaudy as Ralph Bakshi's LOTR, but it's not as smooth either. At times it looks weird, ugly, and stilted. The best that can be said is that the production designs match up pretty well with the original story. There are even times when I felt the movie showed exactly what I imagined while reading the book. However, the film does have a few bad design choices: Gollum looks like a freaking salamander, the spiders all look like Popeye's pappy, and Smaug looks like he has a giant rat's head.

It's an okay cartoon overall, and chances are that kids would love it. For me, all it does is hype me up for PJ's upcoming adaptation more and more. Now that I've refreshed my memory of the story and events, I can definitely get a feeling for how the new films will turn out...and so far they look perfect!

As for this stupid cartoon...

3/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: In the ages to come, this film shall be smote and cast out by the awesome power of Peter Jackson's Hobbit films!


...in other words...nah...

LOL Fail!! I got all excited.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

The Dark Knight Rises 4/5

Im getting really angry right now

[Show spoiler]

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

LOL Fail!! I got all excited.

One point for Al.

[Foggy]

Watched The Raid again last night, seriously, check it out

[jvince]

End of Watch (2012)
dir. David Ayer

The Good: Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña. Clever use of POV shots with the car cameras during the chase scenes and the first-person shooter style shots during the final shootout.

The Bad: For a film that seems to be striving for realism, our two protagonists go through an awful lot of shit within a short span of time that it becomes quite ridiculous. Even the gangsters themselves are quite ridiculous, reduced to caricatures constantly spouting the f-word. Goes a little overboard at times with the shaky cam. Felt like Ayer was unsure on how to end his movie.

The Bottom Line: End of Watch is a serviceable cop drama anchored by Gyllenhaal and Peña. Not great, but not bad either.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Im getting really angry right now

[Show spoiler]

Watched it in a very crappy german dub. They raped Bane's voice. Hated it and all his scene were terrible because of that. I've seen it in its original form once and it was amazing. Definitely increased my rating

[legendarymatt92]

A couple of weeks ago I reviewed the UK theatrical cut of Hunger Games, and was less impressed with it than I thought I would be. I made a promise to watch the longer cut that was shown in American cinemas, and to compare it. Here goes:

The first thing you notice when the unseen version ends is how much better the pacing is - in the UK theatrical cut (which from here on in will be called "Cut A"), the plot feels rushed and the characters under-developed, with more emphasis on showing the Capitol and the Games than the build-up to such a life-changing event. I must say, although I can't remember which scenes were added into Cut A to make Cut B, it didn't rush as much, developed the characters a little bit more and allowed more emotion to seep through. It didn't spend any more time on the build-up to the Games, which was a bit of a let-down, but I can understand why Gary Ross was instructed to spend as little time in the District and as much time in the Capitol as possible. The direction seems a bit more fleshed out and therefore stronger in places - with Cut A, although it was directed well, it seemed a bit distant and certain scenes didn't seem to fit with what had come previously. The joins between the scenes in Cut B are much better, edits not as stark and noticeable, with better continuity in some places, also, which adds to the overall experience.
As Cut B has been raised from a 12 to a 15 rating, it is obvious that it contains more violence and gore - Cut A seemed a bit weak on showing any amount of blood, often cutting away from injuries and fights to achieve a lower, kid-friendly rating. Cut B does not do that, and features more gore, but not in a over-the-top way; it's not like Hostel or Saw, where gore is just piled on, but it is used in a constructive way, just to signal to the audience the barbaric nature of the Games and what the characters have to endure for no reason at all. I enjoyed the Unseen Version of The Hunger Games much more than the UK theatrical one, and I urge anyone that hasn't seen the film at all to seek out the better, longer and 15-rated cut.

[Foggy]

Legendarymatt, the film is only extended by 6 seconds.

[P@t_Mtl]

Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

This American movie is actually a remake of the 1952 French movie La fête à Henriette. Audrey Hepburn and William Holden play two characters who only have a few days to complete a movie scenario that was actually never started. As Holden recite the script and Hepburn type the story the movie start to show the story being narrated by Holden, featuring him and Hepburn as the main characters. It's a movie within a movie which show's some of the creative process writers can use to come up with a story. Back in 1964 critics were a bit harsh on the movie but as now gain a good reputation. There is nothing ground breaking but the movie is well done and both Hepburn and Holden are actualy very good in it.

[P@t_Mtl]

Leviathan (1989)

Under the sea, no one can hear you scream!

That really should have been the tag line to the movie since it's so close to being Alien under the sea. It was even made 10 years later almost sound like some sort of anniversary tribute. The story is about some undersea miners who discover a wreck and bring back some sort of monster to their own abode (sound familiar so far?) I was drag to the theater by a bunch of friends to go see this back in 1989 and today was the first time I saw it since then back in the spring of 1989 (23 years). I was actually surprise how how well the movie aged. A lot of time these rather cheesy scif/horror movies don't age well but this one still hold's up pretty good.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Foggy

^^^

Don't want to sound mean or anything, but you're not very good at this reviewing thing

I'll put alot more effort into the next review

[Foggy]

Watched Cabin in the Woods again, still my fave film of the year!

[P@t_Mtl]

Addams Family Values (1993)

The first movie was fun, this one was just hilarious! Most of the times sequels have a hard time keeping up with the original, even more so in cases like comedy movies. This second Addams Family movie is even funnier than the first one. Christina Ricci steal the movie and it's hard to forget Joan Cusack in the weird role of the nanny/black widow. I suppose you could argue that they went for more easy cheap laughs in this one compared to the first. All I can say is that it work's for me and I never get tired of watching this movie

[dag]

Originally Posted by jvince

End of Watch (2012)
dir. David Ayer

The Bottom Line: End of Watch is a serviceable cop drama anchored by Gyllenhaal and Peña. Not great, but not bad either.

I'm debating whether to see this, as it's playing right near where I live, or wait to watch it at home on BD. The premise seems unnecessary and the plot seems over the top. I may see it Thursday night, or I may go see a documentary about Richard Wagner, or I may just stay home.

[jvince]

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)
dir. Shane Black

The Good: Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer. Michelle Monaghan in a sexy santa outfit.

The Bad: The mystery is run-of-the-mill, convoluted, and contrived. Too self-aware.

The Bottom Line: Kiss Kiss could've been something more, but it tries way too hard, and is ultimately too clever for its own good. Worth a look for neo-noir fans.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by dag

I'm debating whether to see this, as it's playing right near where I live, or wait to watch it at home on BD. The premise seems unnecessary and the plot seems over the top. I may see it Thursday night, or I may go see a documentary about Richard Wagner, or I may just stay home.

My suggestion, just wait. It's nowhere near as great as the reviews make it out to be. It's not really something you need to see on the big screen either.

[P@t_Mtl]

White Material (2009)

Unfortunately I can't say that I enjoyed it. A few things sort of made it that it was going to be difficult for me to like it,

1. It's a war story. Alright not a typical one but in general I don't enjoy war stories very much

2. Isabelle Hupert. I understand that she as quite a following now after 40 years of acting but I never liked her and I really hated her in this movie

3. Not enough Christophe Lambert which would have help for me

I found the excution of the movie not that well made. Characters just jump around. The character that Hupert played was just plain annoying. She should have receive a bullet in the head before the movie even started. She goes around like she can do everything on her own but yet spend the entire movie always annoying others to help her do her work. Overall I can see why this movie is so well liked but it just did not work for me.

[SquidPuppet]

I have been watching tons of TV on Blu-ray lately. With all the awesome releases recently and in the next month or so, I'll be watching a lot more too. I snuck in a couple films that I wanted to see though before returning to the TV shows.

Akira

1988 - R - 129 minutes

I thought I'd like this a lot more than I did.

Post apocalyptic world? Check. Government conspiracy? Check. Fast motorcycles? Check. Dark and dangerous? Check. Cool animation? Check and sign me up. But I ended up not caring. Meh.

I just didnt like the young male protagonists. They were complete and utter D!CKS to everyone around them. All the time, for no reason.

I also didnt like the voicework. It seemed like almost every line was YELLED with anger. Even lines that would normally be spoken at a low volume with little to no emotion were SCREAMED with over-the-top rage and passion. After 15 minutes it was really silly and very annoying.

The two gripes above were offputting right from the start and prevented me from becoming invested in the story.

Film 2/5
PQ 4.5/5
AQ 4.5/5