The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

For all our younger members, this is perhaps the Grand Daddy of the low brow, filthy, raunchy, over-the-top comedy genre. It has some doozy scenes too, if you enjoy that kind of film.

1977's....



Arriving on Blu-ray in June.

Never seen it, but I want to. May consider a blind-buy, especially if it's anything comparable to both Airplane movies.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

End of Watch

With this movie sitting at 85% on RT, an average critic rating of 7.1/10, and an average user rating of 4.1/5, I am clearly in the minority.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña have good chemistry and give great performances.

On a technical and artistic basis, everything was monumentally unpleasant for me. Literally, every single aspect of this film rubbed me the wrong way. I havent seen a film that felt this amateur in ages.

I have only myself to blame, though. It was written by the same guy who wrote Training Day, which was also fillied with illogical-to-the-point-of-ludicrous events. And I knew that going in.

2/5

The ending is absolutely preposterous right? Copsploitation that only the writer of Training Day could phone in, the amped up melodrama is totally at odds with what the film is trying to achieve visually: grit and naturalism.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Never seen it, but I want to. May consider a blind-buy, especially if it's anything comparable to both Airplane movies.

...or Naked Gun movies, I had a Naked Gun/Airplane double feature recently, and boy does Airplane ever lose it's edge after repeat viewings, Naked Gin is easily the more hilarious of the two.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

...or Naked Gun movies, I had a Naked Gun/Airplane double feature recently, and boy does Airplane ever lose it's edge after repeat viewings, Naked Gin is easily the more hilarious of the two.

Airplane has never lost its edge with me, but the Naked Gun is jolly good too.

If anything, it's the Hot Shots! movies that never stuck with me that much.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Airplane has never lost its edge with me, but the Naked Gun is jolly good too.

If anything, it's the Hot Shots! movies that never stuck with me that much.

I've never seen Hot Shots doesn't part 2 have a cult following?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Never seen it, but I want to. May consider a blind-buy, especially if it's anything comparable to both Airplane movies.

Equally as kooky, but far naughtier, and far less politically corect.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I watch all non-English animation with the English dub as well. Even the native language doesnt synch perfectly in most films since its animation, so I figure what the heck. Dragon Hunters English dub seemed to synch almost flawlessly.

True, and it is more enjoyable as long as it's not a distraction. It is with live action films of course, but it was nice not to have to read the movie while watching Whisper of the Heart.

I've never seen Dragon Hunters. Yes, I know, you highly recommend it.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I watch all non-English animation with the English dub as well. Even the native language doesnt synch perfectly in most films since its animation, so I figure what the heck. Dragon Hunters English dub seemed to synch almost flawlessly.

The Disney dubs sync even better than the Japanese tracks most of the time. But they focus so much on perfecting that aspect that the script changes, sometimes too much. That's the main reason I prefer subtitles for these films. It keeps the dialogue closest to the script.

To see the difference, try playing the English audio while running the original subtitle track. Some of the changes may disappoint you, it does for me anyway. That's why "dubtitles" are unpopular. The original meaning of some phrases can be lost from the literal translation to the one adapted to their mouths. Sometimes they even blatantly leave things out, like somebody will respond to their name being called in the original track, but in the English track- silence. Or vice-versa.

I'm still pretty upset that the Castle in the Sky blu only offers dubtitles. Disney...

[Lepidopterous]

Also, Squid- curious what your take is on Audiard's Rust and Bone. I'll post my expanded thoughts in a moment. Abdrewes and I briefly discussed it a while ago, but I don't think anyone else has seen it. It just went down to $14.99 at Fry's so I plan on picking it up and rewatching soon.

[Lepidopterous]

My Review

My two core issues with the film and the answers I have put together:

Issue:
Ali barely shows any traces of compassion for his child beyond very basic paternal instincts

[Show spoiler](save your drowning child). Obviously his irresponsible lifestyle makes him an extremely unlikable character, but I endured this frustration in hope of some kind of profound transformation or punishment by the film's end. After his negligence almost kills his kid, everything comes together for him--a professional MMA career, reuniting with Stephanie, and keeping custody of his son. Sure, he sheds a tear and breaks his hand, but that's his profound consequence? Or is Audiard going for the deeper sense of guilt that he will feel every time he strikes with his hand? It just seems like a weak resolution for a very messed up person, which just scrambles the message of the film for me.

I initially thought it was about two broken people who save each other. Things obviously got back on track for him, but nothing convinced me that he actually grew as a character.

Conclusion:

[Show spoiler]Ali is a man that cannot care for or connect with others. He is not a good person, but he has good in him. The film's narrative is lined with a series of careless actions that demonstrate emotional detachment, which lead to the poignant climax of his pivotal "leg-losing" moment in his own life. It is only then that he embraces others and is able to connect. We are told this in a direct way, an indirect way, and an abstract way.

- Audiard delivers his direct message through Ali’s breakdown on the phone. The near-tragic event's immediate impact on Ali shows us that life is finally finding a path to his heart. This directly demonstrates that he is finally lowering his barriers.

- Audiard delivers his indirect message through Ali’s injured hand, which tells us that that channel to his heart will remain open whenever he feels pain. This implies that although he may not have "evolved" into a good person, he will always be able to access that wisdom inside of him every time he strikes. Since fighting is now his profession, this can be considered a long-term resolution to his character, because he is now prevented from forgetting the incident and regressing to his previous state.

- The abstract message lies in the contrast between his negativity and sadness throughout the film vs. the abrupt positivity and glow immediately following the drowning incident. From this, we are forced to assume that everything is different because of the accident. This draws a growth bridge between emotional detachment and emotional attachment. Thus, Audiard finds it unnecessary to display the specifics of the character growth on-screen if he can already show the product.

It is this last choice that I found particularly unsettling on my first viewing, because in skipping the growth stage in an effort to show us the product, one can just as easily assume that Ali imposed their relationship to fulfill his own needs and narcissistically continue to pursue his own lifestyle and interests. However, naturally, vagueness leaves a film vulnerable to interpretation. I'm all for subtleties and nuanced performances, but I do wish Ali's spiritual resolution wasn't so rushed and understated. Ending on logical assumptions works better when the puzzle pieces are left to construct an ending (i.e. Shame or Inception), not the path to the ending.

However, the rushed ending actually does work if you shift your frame of view from Ali's behavior to his relationships. It helps to recognize that the resolution is more in place to address how Ali is able to open up and become compatible with Stephanie. I, for one, kept waiting to see how Ali's behavior was going to turn around, but this is surely a red herring. The film is more about how these two cannot be fully aligned until each undergoes a traumatic experience that fundamentally changes them, at least enough to make it work. It explains why he keeps custody of his son too (which I was initially disappointed with). He hasn't turned his behavior around--he has simply opened up to those around him. Since this is not as profound a change, it does not necessarily demand a lengthier ending.

In sum, the film is not about how they save one another. It is about their path to a compatibility. And Ali and Stephanie could not truly be compatible until he underwent his own "whale accident," which was the missing element inside both of them when they first met as two naive individuals.

Issue:

[Show spoiler]Stephanie's support of Ali's fighting. As someone that just underwent a traumatic accident, I don't see why she decided to support him in his violent and risky endeavor. Maybe there was a subtle moment I missed that explains everything, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Conclusion:

[Show spoiler]It could be a case of acceptance as opposed to support.

On one hand, she is reciprocally accepting him for who he is, "seeing through" his ugly exterior. Her acceptance can be lumped into her passive approach in putting up with his persistence to keep his boundaries up. This passive approach in general is what allows Ali to "come to" on his own and realize from within that he cannot go on with these boundaries in place.

On the other hand, she is accepting quite a different type of flaw--one of behavior, not physical disability. It is something she disagrees with, thus it can be seen as her "giving up" on him or abandoning her morals as opposed to her physical preference. This is a much bigger sacrifice imo.


Of course... I could be completely wrong. We'll see if the second viewing holds up.

[jvince]

Gattaca (1997)
dir. Andrew Niccol

The Good: Brilliant concept. Jude Law. Some nice looking sets. Great score by Michael Nyman.

The Bad: The voiceover, the dialogue, and the message all feel heavy-handed. Underdeveloped romance.

The Bottom Line: Gattaca is classic Andrew Niccol -- fascinating ideas, shaky execution -- only this one's the most tolerable. Worth a look for sci-fi fans.

[Steve46]

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

I'm not going to give you a summary of everything that Roger Ebert achieved in his life. Instead, I'll try to put into words what he meant to me.

I never met the man, or received any comments or emails from him. I sincerely doubt that he ever read a single word that I wrote, but I still feel like I lost a friend. I heard the news on the radio while I was at work, and it felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. I knew that he had been ill for a long time, but I didn't expect him to die for a few more years.

My blog has only been around for about two years, and I have only been a serious fan of film for five or six years. Sure, I've watched movies all my life, but it's only recently that I really started to take notice of what I was seeing on the screen, and what was being said below the surface. Instead of choosing whatever was popular, such as the latest comic book adaptation or dumb comedy, I started to think about the things that matter in life. Sometimes it was enough to be thrilled or see impressive special effects, but the films that will stay with me forever are those which impact me on an emotional level. I'm not sure whether I would ever have explored so many films that I missed if it were not for Roger Ebert.

Ebert's style was to get right to the heart of a movie. He hinted at the plot, of course, but he had a knack of seeing why a movie worked, or why it didn't work. He sometimes compared the events to things he had experienced in his own life, and that helped me understand why a scene might have been powerful to him.

What I probably admire the most is that Ebert was always honest. He didn't praise something just because he was a fan, or a friend of the director. If you look at his 4-star review of my personal favorite, Mulholland Dr., you might think that he's likely to wax lyrical about anything David Lynch ever gave us. But that's not the case. Blue Velvet earned a 1-star review, and I respect his reasons for giving it such a poor score. I respect all of his opinions because he wrote about the subject for 45 years, and was surely a student of the medium long before that. I can't make similar claims.

Another admirable quality was the way Ebert reacted to setbacks in his own life. He dealt with his illness without complaining, and contributed a huge amount despite eventually losing the ability to speak. He openly admitted his weakness for alcohol, and didn't shy away from showing the world what he looked like after part of his jaw was removed. I smile when I think about the way he talked about his wife, Chaz, and the obvious love they had for each other.

A surprising thing about Ebert is that he was open to any genre, and could recognize the genius in anything. I wouldn't have expected him to like Tarantino's films, but he passionately endorsed them and understood the humor. He also thought about the intended audience for a movie, and rated it with that in mind. He never pretended that he was unable to be reached by movies intended to have mass appeal. I try to keep that in mind when I voice my own opinions.

I was always happy when Ebert added one of my favorites to his great movies list. I know that his opinion doesn't have any bearing on what I like, but it still gave me pleasure to read his thoughts on such movies as Spirited Away. Ebert's endorsement of my favorite films mattered to me, and I will definitely explore many of those great movies that I haven't had the chance to watch.

Roger Ebert's speaking voice may have been lost a few years ago, but his ability to reach people remained until the day he died. In fact, his influence will always be with me.

I started writing because of my love for the NFL, and the need to voice my ideas and opinions about Fantasy Football. I started a blog because I was encouraged to do just that by my closest friend in the world. But I continue to attempt to write movie reviews because of Roger Ebert. I'm unlikely to affect the world in any significant way, but my best chance is through my writing. If I persuade one person to watch a movie because of one of my reviews, it justifies the three or four hours I spent watching the movie and struggling over my wording.

Over the past few years, I avoided reading reviews until I had seen the movie and reviewed it myself. When that was done, I would read Ebert's review and see whether he agreed with me, or if he had noticed something that I hadn't. I'll eventually read everything he ever published, but I'll always miss his presence.

I think that the role of a critic is to give an honest opinion. That's not always as easy as it sounds, especially when you have met some of the people who directed or acted in the movies. I chose Ebert as my go-to reviewer because I knew that I would get his true feelings, but I also found that our tastes are similar. There's no point in reading the words of someone with completely different taste if you want to use the review to decide whether something is worth seeing.

One article that I will never forget has nothing to do with movies at all. Ebert wrote about intelligence, and how many people are afraid to show it. Why do we dumb down what we are saying?

Thanks Roger. The movies won't be quite the same without you. The world has lost an honest, witty, and intelligent man, and a wonderful example of what a human being should be. I hope that you would approve of my amateur efforts.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Gattaca (1997)
dir. Andrew Niccol

The Good: Brilliant concept. Jude Law. Some nice looking sets. Great score by Michael Nyman.

The Bad: The voiceover, the dialogue, and the message all feel heavy-handed. Underdeveloped romance.

The Bottom Line: Gattaca is classic Andrew Niccol -- fascinating ideas, shaky execution -- only this one's the most tolerable. Worth a look for sci-fi fans.

Are you checking out The Host or In Time soon...because...you shouldn't!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

I'm not going to give you a summary of everything that Roger Ebert achieved in his life. Instead, I'll try to put into words what he meant to me.

I never met the man, or received any comments or emails from him. I sincerely doubt that he ever read a single word that I wrote, but I still feel like I lost a friend. I heard the news on the radio while I was at work, and it felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. I new that he had been ill for a long time, but I didn't expect him to die for a few more years.

My blog has only been around for about two years, and I have only been a serious fan of film for five or six years. Sure, I've watched movies all my life, but it's only recently that I really started to take notice of what I was seeing on the screen, and what was being said below the surface. Instead of choosing whatever was popular, such as the latest comic book adaptation or dumb comedy, I started to think about the things that matter in life. Sometimes it was enough to be thrilled or see impressive special effects, but the films that stay with me forever are those which impact me on an emotional level. I'm not sure whether I would ever have explored so many films that I had missed if it were not for Roger Ebert.

Ebert's style was to get right to the heart of a movie. He hinted at the plot, of course, but he had a knack of seeing why a movie worked, or why it didn't work. He sometimes compared the events to things he had experienced in his own life, and that helped me understand why a scene might have been powerful to him.

What I probably admire the most is that Ebert was always honest. He didn't praise something just because he was a fan, or a friend of the director. If you look at his 4-star review of my personal favorite, Mulholland Dr., you might think that he's likely to wax lyrical about anything David Lynch ever gave us. But that's not the case. Blue Velvet earned a 1-star review, and I respect his reasons for giving it such a poor score. I respect all of his opinions because he wrote about the subject for 45 years, and was surely a student of the medium long before that. I can't make similar claims.

Another admirable quality was the way Ebert reacted to setbacks in his own life. He dealt with his illness without complaining, and contributed a huge amount despite eventually losing the ability to speak. He openly admitted his weakness for alcohol, and didn't shy away from showing the world what he looked like after part of his jaw was removed. I smile when I think about the way he talked about his wife, Chaz, and the obvious love they had for each other.

A surprising thing about Ebert is that he was open to any genre, and could recognize the genius in anything. I wouldn't have expected him to like Tarantino's films, but he passionately endorsed them and understood the humor. He also thought about the intended audience for a movie, and rated it with that in mind. He never pretended that he was unable to be reached by movies intended to have mass appeal. I try to keep that in mind when I voice my own opinions.

I was always happy when Ebert added one of my favorites to his great movies list. I know that his opinion doesn't have any bearing on what I like, but it still gave me pleasure to read his thoughts on such movies as Spirited Away. Ebert's endorsement of my favorite films mattered to me, and I will definitely explore many of those great movies that I haven't had the chance to watch.

Roger Ebert's speaking voice may have been lost a few years ago, but his ability to reach people remained until the day he died. In fact, his influence will always be with me.

I started writing because of my love for the NFL, and the need to voice my ideas and opinions about Fantasy Football. I started a blog because I was encouraged to do just that by my closest friend in the world. But I continue to attempt to write movie reviews because of Roger Ebert. I'm unlikely to affect the world in any significant way, but my best chance is through my writing. If I persuade one person to watch a movie because of one of my reviews, it justifies the three or four hours I spent watching the movie and struggling over my wording.

Over the past few years, I avoided reading reviews until I had seen the movie and reviewed it myself. When that was done, I would read Ebert's review and see whether he agreed with me, or if he had noticed something that I hadn't. I'll eventually read everything he ever published, but I'll always miss his presence.

I think that the role of a critic is to give an honest opinion. That's not always as easy as it sounds, especially when you have met some of the people who directed or acted in the movies. I chose Ebert as my go-to reviewer because I knew that I would get his true feelings, but I also found that our tastes are similar. There's no point in reading the words of someone with completely different taste if you want to use the review to decide whether something is worth seeing.

One article that I will never forget has nothing to do with movies at all. Ebert wrote about intelligence, and how many people are afraid to show it. Why do we dumb down what we are saying?

Thanks Roger. The movies won't be quite the same without you. The world has lost an honest, witty, and intelligent man, and a wonderful example of what a human being should be. I hope that you would approve of my amateur efforts.

My feelings about his passing and the effect he had on me are very similar to your own. I enjoyed reading your reflection on him.

[jhiggy23]

Notorious:

3 (out of 4)


Considered one of Hitchcock's finest, and was on Ebert's personal 10 greatest films of all-time before he replaced it with Vertigo. Despite this, I felt a bit underwhelmed about it. It had some very nicely directed moments and I liked that the plot was a deviation from what Hitchcock normally did, while still having many of his hallmarks. Ultimately, however, it just didn't reach me the way Psycho, Dial M for Murder, 39 Steps, or even Rope did. I think I'll have to revisit it.

[jhiggy23]

Rust and Bone:

3 (out of 4)


DJ, I thought your insight into the film was interesting to read and I agree with a lot of your interpretation. This film was different than I thought it would be, as I also thought it was about two people that lost an ability to do something essential to them, who come together and fall in love due to their mutual anguish. I've heard the film described as a character study regarding the male lead, but I find that to be misplaced; I don't think the film is a character study at all, because an essential aspect of that is for the character to show some growth or change, which I think is absent from the male lead in the film. I think DJ accurately points out that the film isn't about the male lead ultimately changing from bad guy to good guy; it's about how he's a bad guy that has a capability for good and a capability for compassion. Why does he voluntarily decide to help out Cotillard? The film pretty clearly shows that it is NOT for selfish reasons, such as personal gratification or sex. The film never explains his reasons and I think that's why DJ's interpretation is correct--the male lead simply has a capability for good.

One last note is that many critics thought this film should've been France's entry into consideration for the Oscars and that Cotillard should have gotten an Oscar nod. I can't comment about the former, but in regards to the latter, I'm not sure I agree. I don't think Cotillard's role was a leading one and if it was, I don't think it matches up with those nominated (in a very strong year) even thought she was great. I think her role was much more a supporting one and she certainly couldn've been nominated for that (cough Jackie Weaver cough).

[jhiggy23]

Dirty Pretty Things:

3 (out of 4)



Very gritty, almost dirty film. This film stands at 94% on RT and I can see why 94% of critics gave it a favorable review. Although the film has a nice thriller set-up (illegal immigrant night porter finding a human heart clogging a hotel toilet), it's much more about immigration and the lives of these people. Many reviews point out, and I agree, that Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is very easy to root for and that that is a main reason for the film being a good one. I think Ejiofor (who adopted a Nigerian accent for the film by listening to his parents, despite being English) was perfect for the role and has such an expressive face when it comes to grief, that he really was ideal. I've thought for years that Ejiofor is an actor to really watch out for and I think it's only a matter of time before he gets "that" role. I also though Audrey Tautou did an excellent job, even though she plays a Turkish immigrant and not a French one. She has that wholesomeness that was needed for the role. Lastly, I also really liked the ending. Worth seeing.

[jhiggy23]

The Whistleblower:


3 (out of 4)



A good film that could've been even better. Rachel Weisz, as usual, is excellent. Many critics liked that this film very accurately portrayed the actual true story of what happened and I agree. It's an important story to be told and I'm glad they tried to make it as accurate as possible. I think it's worth seeing, if for no other reason than for Weisz and for an insight into a troubling event.

[BJKH]

Here is my review for Lincoln:

Lincoln Review

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

The Disney dubs sync even better than the Japanese tracks most of the time. But they focus so much on perfecting that aspect that the script changes, sometimes too much. That's the main reason I prefer subtitles for these films. It keeps the dialogue closest to the script.

To see the difference, try playing the English audio while running the original subtitle track. Some of the changes may disappoint you, it does for me anyway. That's why "dubtitles" are unpopular. The original meaning of some phrases can be lost from the literal translation to the one adapted to their mouths. Sometimes they even blatantly leave things out, like somebody will respond to their name being called in the original track, but in the English track- silence. Or vice-versa.

I'm still pretty upset that the Castle in the Sky blu only offers dubtitles. Disney...

NO! Ignorance is bliss.