The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I certainly agree that getting disturbed by a film is unpleseant. When it comes to that, I stop looking at it as entertainment and more as an experience. The value of such an experience varies for me depending on context.

Good answer.

I Saw the Devil is brutal, but pretty badass; I think it's actually pretty easy to relate to the characters because they're both so wicked and you really do want to see them rip each other apart.

Absolutely. The duels are the best scenes in the movie.

[Show spoiler]But in my 4th or 5th viewing, I started questioning why they need to show the dad's face getting bashed in at the end or the girl in the very beginning. Intermittent violence is always effective if spaced out well (History of Violence comes to mind), so keeping one or two of those scenes in is fun to get the audience screaming/cringing, but the camera just lingers! He just goes to town with the hammer as we watch people's heads getting caved in.

Lovely.

^Note that I pointed out a positive aspect of the disturbing content in this case because I Saw the Devil is not exploiting those scenes to pass as a horror film, but rather uses them to create a terribly vile killer.

One of these days, I plan on compiling a list of the most disturbing films I have seen...

I'd be interested in seeing it.

[jvince]

Children of Paradise (1945)
dir. Marcel Carné

The Good: Beautiful score. Solid camera work. Has a few great moments (like the final scene). Great performance by Jean-Louis Barrault.

The Bad: Three long hours that seem to drag on forever, with its simplistic plot that's stretched way too thin and characters you can't really give a f*ck about. Might just put you to sleep.

The Bottom Line: Children of Paradise feels more like a stage play rather than a feature film. Some might find it tedious and challenging, while others might thoroughly appreciate it.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

One of those really most wanted in the Criterion thread I just hope Criterion break down soon and grant me my wish of City Lights and Picnic At Hanging Rock

Originally Posted by DjMethod

City Lights is definitely one of my most wanted Criterion blu's. Along with Hiroshima Mon Amour and more Buñuel--particularly Viridiana or Exterminating Angel.

Criterion better release these next year:

The Red Balloon
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Tokyo Story
Mon Oncle d'Amérique
Cure
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
Daisies
City Lights
Le Samouraï
The Kid


It'd also be really cool if they'd somehow release these films (it's unlikely though):

The Decalogue
The Silence of the Lambs
Departures
Before Sunrise
Before Sunset
Mulholland Drive
Persona
RoboCop


And some pretty great films that I might consider buying when released (I just don't think I would revisit these as much as my favorites):

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai
Hana-bi (Fireworks)
The Woman in the Dunes
Seance on a Wet Afternoon
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Ugetsu
Celine and Julie Go Boating
Night and Fog

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Nice choices! I was going to list Midnight in Paris but it didn't blend as well with my other choices and I like it for different reasons.

Forgot about Midnight in Paris. Not a favorite of mine, but it's still a pretty great time travel movie. Also forgot to mention Celine and Julie. Pretty crazy film.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

No Triangle??????????

What the hell is this Triangle you speak of?

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moonrise Kingdom

[Show spoiler]One of the strangest films about love I've ever seen.

The film is about 2 kids who are very socially challenged, possibly psychopathic who decide to run away into the forest and stay there for a few days. Meanwhile, they're getting chased down by the scouts and the girls parents. I liked it enough.

I can't decide whether the meet expectations or fell a tad short. It was a very funny film, with all the humour being typically dry like Wes Anderson films usually are. But some of the charm was lost on me, and I can't think why?

Essentially, it's a film about the children being more mature than their parents and guardians. As Bruce Willis and Ed Norton bumbles around at a lost of life, Murray and McDormand can't handle their children and their own marriage. And in the middle of this misery we have two kids who genuine love each other, but can't do anything as they're stuck so they break out and go on a fantasy trip.

The film looks very much like a pop-up children's book in the way it is filmed, with lots of symmetry and flat shots, and the narrator looking like who comes out of a goofy kids documentary, the film seems to blossom from child imagination. While the style works for the film, there become certain moments where it beings to grate and become too much, pushing you away instead of adding charm.

Most of the child actors are great, with the only one being a bit patchy was the main boy, he's not bad but he just seems to struggle getting his words out properly. Most the adult cast is terrific, and you wish you could get more of the side characters, like Murray and Schwartzman.

All in all, I really liked it, but it's just going to take a while for me to truly love it if I ever do...

9/10

Finally!

Had the same gripes you did (not enough Murray, Schwartzman, and Swinton; the visual style is a little overwhelming in the beginning, but it sucks you in and you get used to it). Gotta disagree with you though regarding the boy. I thought he was amazing. He was convincingly awkward and likable. I actually even thought he was a little better than the girl. Both of them were surprisingly good though.

[P@t_Mtl]

Les Aventures extraordinaires d'Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010)

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec

This movie is probably not well known outside of the Francophone world even if it was directed by Luc Besson. It's based on a series of comics by Jacques Tardi, Adele is a turn of the century (19th-20th century) who is always mix up in all sorts of weird adventures (think of her a sort of woman Indy). In the movie she as a goal of saving a sister who was victim of a bizzare accident some years before and must revive a mummy in order to do so. The movie is quite funny along with a dose of fantasy and adventure for which Besson is well suited. The movie is general is well reviewed but the box offcie was just slightly above the initial budget and a sequel may not happen

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I'm guessing because the Dad would then have to tell the following things:

[Show spoiler]
(a) I'm sending her away b/c daughter killed rich dude's son
(b) Rich dude WILL kill my daughter

The husband probably won't understand why he's sending her away just based on (a)+(b), so the Dad will also have to tell:

(c) I (dad) know the rich dude will kill my daughter, because he's killed others
(d) rich dude killed your (husband) dad, and I (dad) was there

Yeah...I think now I can see why Daddy held off on telling hubby Seems like there was no way to let him in on the plan w/o exposing himself as complicit in hubby's dads murder. he confessed at the end of the film b/c by then , it didn't matter - he was already going away for killing hooker and 2 dudes

I don't know. Maybe you're right. another viewing will be good to test your interpretation!



now that is some FUNNY SH!T

(B) and (C) are the same.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I'm not sure if I get that channel, but thanks!

Squid'll probably tune in. It's one of his favorite movies.

With one of my favorite scenes of all time.... the restaurant/beer.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

(B) and (C) are the same.

so you think

[Show spoiler]the dad wouldn't have to divulge that he killed the hubby's dad with rich dude, in other to merely tell hubby that daughter will be killed by rich dude? yeah I can see that. still though, if I was daddy, I'd be worried that hubby will do some digging on the rich dude once I tell him that he'll kill daughter, and find out I (dad) killed his daddy with rich dude

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moonrise Kingdom

9/10

I really liked it, and I usually do not like Wes Anderson. Only the

[Show spoiler]beach

scene turned me off - seemed entirely inappropriate. Even the girl I was with (VERY liberal) had a wincing face when I looked over at her during the scene.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I really liked it, and I usually do not like Wes Anderson. Only the

[Show spoiler]beach

scene turned me off - seemed entirely inappropriate. Even the girl I was with (VERY liberal) had a wincing face when I looked over at her during the scene.

Yeah, the friend I was with and myself thought it was a bit too much.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

Criterion better release these next year:

The Red Balloon
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Tokyo Story
Mon Oncle d'Amérique
Cure
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
Daisies
City Lights
Le Samouraï
The Kid

I think those in bold have a good chance.

The Decalogue
The Silence of the Lambs
Departures
Before Sunrise
Before Sunset
Mulholland Drive
Persona
RoboCop

I didn't know any of these were Criterion except the last two. A Departures release would be amazing. I even made a thread on it over 3 years ago lol. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=98343

Forgot about Midnight in Paris. Not a favorite of mine, but it's still a pretty great time travel movie. Also forgot to mention Celine and Julie. Pretty crazy film.

Celine and Julie seems kinda long (193 minutes). Do you recommend it?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moonrise Kingdom

[Show spoiler]One of the strangest films about love I've ever seen.

The film is about 2 kids who are very socially challenged, possibly psychopathic who decide to run away into the forest and stay there for a few days. Meanwhile, they're getting chased down by the scouts and the girls parents. I liked it enough.

I can't decide whether the meet expectations or fell a tad short. It was a very funny film, with all the humour being typically dry like Wes Anderson films usually are. But some of the charm was lost on me, and I can't think why?

Essentially, it's a film about the children being more mature than their parents and guardians. As Bruce Willis and Ed Norton bumbles around at a lost of life, Murray and McDormand can't handle their children and their own marriage. And in the middle of this misery we have two kids who genuine love each other, but can't do anything as they're stuck so they break out and go on a fantasy trip.

The film looks very much like a pop-up children's book in the way it is filmed, with lots of symmetry and flat shots, and the narrator looking like who comes out of a goofy kids documentary, the film seems to blossom from child imagination. While the style works for the film, there become certain moments where it beings to grate and become too much, pushing you away instead of adding charm.

Most of the child actors are great, with the only one being a bit patchy was the main boy, he's not bad but he just seems to struggle getting his words out properly. Most the adult cast is terrific, and you wish you could get more of the side characters, like Murray and Schwartzman.

All in all, I really liked it, but it's just going to take a while for me to truly love it if I ever do...

9/10

I don't like any of his films but have been looking forward to this one regardless.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moonrise Kingdom

But some of the charm was lost on me, and I can't think why?

While the style works for the film, there become certain moments where it beings to grate and become too much, pushing you away instead of adding charm.

yes! this was the other problem with it! your lines here remind me of a reivewer in another thread who put it better than I could: "like many of Wes Anderson's films, it suffers from being so overly-structured, that it sucks the life out of the film."

[P@t_Mtl]

You Only Live Twice (1967)

One of my favorite Bond movie even if by the time this one was made the movies were getting more and more grandiose and leaving the novels behind. Bond was becoming more a action series rather than a spy series. It was Connery last Bond, well for a few years anyway which led to a seach for a new James Bond.

[Foggy]

I watched Fargo, it's a film that gets better and better

[jvince]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I didn't know any of these were Criterion except the last two. A Departures release would be amazing. I even made a thread on it over 3 years ago lol. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=98343

I don't know how such a masterpiece (and an Oscar-winner!) gets forgotten. One of the greatest films of the past decade, imo.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Celine and Julie seems kinda long (193 minutes). Do you recommend it?

It is a long movie, but it doesn't feel that long. I'd recommend it if you're into French films and surrealism. I love the main characters in this and I think the concept is brilliant and fascinating. I may have to revisit this some time since there's so much to process in just one viewing.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest random selection: BloodRayne

I never expected anything great or smart or even coherent out of this. I went into it totally blind, wanting nothing more than a cheap and cheesy B-movie with lots of sex appeal and lots of blood and gore. And you know what? The film delivered! There's really only a couple of reasons to watch this film: for the incredible blood and gore effects (which are fantastic in the unrated cut, but incredibly subdued in the original theatrical version, and sadly this German Blu-Ray only has the latter ) and for Kristanna Lokken's performance, of which I am particuarly fond of (silly jail sex scene, bad acting and all ).

This film has earned its name as one of the all-time worst films ever made for a few good reasons though. First and foremost, it has absolutely nothing to do with the original video game. The game pitted the titular dhampir against Nazis during WWII, to find some Atlantean artifact and fight monsters and vampires...this movie throws it all out the window and just has Rayne in the Dark Ages embarking in a simple revenge story. It does little-to-no justice to its source material. Even on its own merits, the film is hobbled together with seemingly-random scenes, some of which could have been cut entirely (especially the two scenes with Billy Zane, and perhaps the one with Meat Loaf, all of which serve no purpose in the story). The best that can be said is that the story is servicable; it's coherent enough to follow the characters and the action, but it is riddled with plot holes, inconsistencies, and frivilous scenes.

As far as the film itself goes, the single most redeeming value will be its photography; despite a few shakey-cam scenes, the camera work is pretty solid at times. Acting is attrocious; I read that Michael Madsen was drunk when they filmed this, and it shows. Michelle Rodriguez puts on her standard tough-girl act, Matthew Davis offers some horrid line delivery, Meat Loaf offers a strange and frivilous cameo, it's hard to take Billy Zane seriously in anything he does (especially since he's always smirking in every scene), and even Ben Kingsley shows weakness as a flat and emotionally-void villain. The only bright spots here will be Michael Pare, playing a decently-menacing villain, and Kristanna Lokken, who still contributes to the pool of bad acting with some bad dialoge and some incredibly weak-looking fight choreography. I only give her a pass, partly because she offers some decent sex appeal here, but mostly because I like the expressions and her mannerisms as Rayne (much unlike Natassia Malthe, who does manage to be more appealing in terms of body proportion size, but plays it so tough that she becomes unlikable). Writing is terrible across the board; lines are simple and stupid, and their deliveries are often weak. This production does have some really wicked blood and gore effects. Sets, props, and costumes generally get the job done, but aren't terribly great either. Special effects are pretty bad. Music is alright.

As Uwe Boll's third video-game adaptation, he pretty much strikes out (and strangely, never does give up the game ). Chances are that you may watch all his movies and find them "so bad they're good," but most will just dismiss them as "so bad they're bad." In the case of BloodRayne, it is indeed a bad film and a missed opportunity for making a quality game adaptation (somewhat redeemed with BloodRayne: The Third Reich, but that might be too little too late). As it is, BloodRayne comes down as one of my ultimate choices for a guilty pleasure, since it is rather entertaining with its frivilous sex and violence, but most other viewers will not be so easily appeased.

2.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Poor | Film: Very Poor)

Recommendation: In the words of Dr Nefario: "Do you want to explode?!"

A Blu-Ray for this god-awful film is available from Germany. It contains the R-rated cut only, which sucks because the unrated cut is where it's at. Video quality contains some DNR that obscures facial details, probably on the same level as GoldenEye. That also means that the picture looks impeccibly clean and smooth; sharpness and details are not bad. Colors are not bad, but contrast levels are just so-so (was never great for this film). Sound quality is decent; voices are pretty low, but music and action scenes sound good.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 4/5

Oh cool, this movie comes with a coaster!

No wait, never mind. That's just the sequel, BloodRayne 2: Deliverance.


Some more trivia:

• As noted above, it is reported that Michael Madsen was drunk during filming.
• I read somewhere that actual Romanian prostitutes were used for the Meat Loaf scene.
• I totally recognized Neuschwanstein Castle for a brief moment.
• I read that other scenes were filmed at the castle of Vlad the Impaler (aka...Dracula ).
• Like I did with Battleship, I jotted down a bunch of stupid things about this movie, and will make a blog post out of it soon.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: Bis Ans Ende Der Welt, aka Until the End of the World

Any interest I had in this film first stemmed from stumbling across its soundtrack. I got to admit that I thought the soundtrack sucked on its own (a bit too slow for its own good), but when viewed as part of the actual movie, it was pretty awesome. I should have kept that CD...

Anyway, the film's title stuck with me until I learned it was a work of sci-fi. So naturally, I had to check it out!

Bad news first: the film is long. It runs for a good two-and-a-half hours, but incredibly, it's only the short version; the rough cut was originally eight hours long, and the director's preferred version is 280 minutes. Even at 150 minutes, this film feels long and it kinda drags.

That doesn't mean it's a total bore. The film is pretty evenly split in half (for the theatrical cut anyway; the director's cut is supposedly arranged as a three-part trilogy). The first half is easily the most interesting and thrilling, as it follows this woman all acros Eurpope and Asia and everywhere else, investigating some shady people and mysterious devices and roaming around some strange post-modern futuristic settings. It comes off much like a sci-fi film noir, somewhat akin to Brazil, but nowhere near as goofy. In the film's last half, with a great catastrophe befalling the Earth, the characters wind up holing themselves up somewhere in Australia, where they bum around for the remainder of the picture. I found this part far less interesting, but it offers a few interesting ideas (including one key aspect that echoes Inception a lot). Altogether, I'd say that it's an interesting film with lots of interesting ideas and plot points, but it achieves the type of pacing that straddles the threshold of being fascinating and unfascinating.

If anything in the above paragraph indicates anything, it's that the story itself is pretty sound and full of neat ideas. It's populated by interesting characters. I really don't have many complaints about the story, other than it felt like it trailed off in the end.

This film looks neat, with quality photography and editing. Acting is swell: I did get a kick out of watching William Hurt, Sam Niell, and Solveig Dommartin in their roles (and Max Von Sydow makes an appearance toward the end). Writing is alright. This production does its best to use (1990) modern sets, props, and costumes for a futuristic look, but with mixed results. Frankly, parts of the film look cheap and cheesy, in a manner no different than Paul Verhoeven's films. Still, it gets the job done. Music is pretty cool (...in the film anyway. Listening to it on its own might be kinda dull, imo).

It's an interesting film and I'm glad I saw it. I just doubt I'll ever want to see it again (even if the full-length version gets released). Still, it is a shame that this film was a commercial and critical failure on its release, because it's not that bad at all.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Recommendation: It's worth seeing at least once.

Right from the start, I asked myself, why doesn't the Criterion Collection pick this film up? It seems like the kind of thing they'd go for. Especially since they released the director's other works (Paris, Texas, and Wings of Desire). I could easly imagine them doing good justice to the film's quality and maybe providing the full director's cut. Dare I say, even though I said I may not want to see it again, I might pick it up if such an edition becomes available.

[jvince]

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)
dir. Jacques Demy

The Good: The cinematography! So masterful, so gorgeous, and filled with a variety of bright colors. Every single frame is eye candy. Jean Rabier's style is very reminiscent of Wes Anderson's, I wouldn't be surprised if this film is among his inspirations (and now I want to see a Wes Anderson musical so badly). Catherine Deneuve at her finest; she has never been more beautiful nor has she delivered such an incredible performance as in this film. Magnificent score by Michel Legrand. Superb direction by Jacques Demy. A unique musical; the entire dialogue is sung.

The Bad: Nothing major, really. The whole thing may take a little getting used to, at first. The singing voices are dubbed, but it isn't noticeable (although it would've been even better had the actual actors sung).

The Bottom Line: Romantic and heartbreaking, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a one-of-a-kind film that's nothing short of magical. Highly recommended for fans of cinematography, romantic dramas, and musicals. I guarantee this will be one of the best you'll ever see.

[P@t_Mtl]

Albert Nobbs (2011)

While I cannot say I truly like the movie I can't say either that it's horrible and boring. The subject matter is of course one that is more difficult for me to relate to but one message in the movie does come out strong and loud and you just cannot ignore it, that of loneliness. No one in this world want's to be lonely, we all need something, someone to make our live's seem worth while, to have meaning. Nobbs was really no different. It may not be a movie I will want to see again but I would tell people that they should see it. It's a bit slow and maybe nothing ground breaking but still interesting to see.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

so you think

[Show spoiler]the dad wouldn't have to divulge that he killed the hubby's dad with rich dude, in other to merely tell hubby that daughter will be killed by rich dude? yeah I can see that. still though, if I was daddy, I'd be worried that hubby will do some digging on the rich dude once I tell him that he'll kill daughter, and find out I (dad) killed his daddy with rich dude

No. Just that (B) and (C) are the same.

Or rather, if we want to be technical, (B) is an empty claim without the support of (C).