The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jvince]

Battleship Potemkin (1925)
dir. Sergei Eisenstein

The Good: Great musical score. Some very impressive camera work, especially for its time.

The Bad: Thin plot. No character development. Some shots are repeatedly used. For a 75 minute film, it feels too long. Blatant Communist propaganda.

The Bottom Line: Influential? Absolutely, without a doubt. A cinematic masterpiece? Hardly. Sure, it pioneered several camera and editing techniques that are still applied today, but the film is seriously lacking in the story/writing department. Worth a watch.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Going to see Django Unchained tonight. Local arthouse opened up a new screen that's a lot bigger. Can't wait to check it out.

Hope you enjoy Django.

Originally Posted by Romulus

Also, Netflix gave me a free month of DVDs so I'm going to see as many Criterions as I can in a month. First one is Ivan's Childhood which should be here tomorrow. Any suggestions?

Highly Recommended
12 Angry Men
Badlands
The Circus
City Lights
Cure
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Double Life of Veronique
Koyaanisqatsi
The Last Picture Show
Last Year at Marienbad
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Modern Times
Mon Oncle d'Amérique
The Red Balloon
The Royal Tenenbaums
Rushmore
The Thin Red Line
The Third Man
Three Colors: Red
Three Colors: White
Tokyo Story
Yi Yi

Recommended
The Battle of Algiers
Blow Out
Chungking Express
Daisies
Dazed and Confused
Diabolique
Following
The Gold Rush
The Kid
La Jetée
Le Samouraï
Night and Fog
The Red Shoes
Seven Samurai
Still Walking
Ugetsu
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
The Wages of Fear
Wings of Desire
The Woman in the Dunes

And here's a cool thread you could check out.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

[Show spoiler]Highly Recommended
12 Angry Men
Badlands
The Circus
City Lights
Cure
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Double Life of Veronique
Koyaanisqatsi
The Last Picture Show
Last Year at Marienbad
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Modern Times
Mon Oncle d'Amérique
The Red Balloon
The Royal Tenenbaums
Rushmore
The Thin Red Line
The Third Man
Three Colors: Red
Three Colors: White
Tokyo Story
Yi Yi

Recommended
The Battle of Algiers
Blow Out
Chungking Express
Daisies
Dazed and Confused
Diabolique
Following
The Gold Rush
The Kid
La Jetée
Le Samouraï
Night and Fog
The Red Shoes
Seven Samurai
Still Walking
Ugetsu
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders
The Wages of Fear
Wings of Desire
The Woman in the Dunes

And here's a cool thread you could check out.

Way to not look at their collection and notice you recommended several that they already own.

The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Charade, Anatomy of a Murder, Sweet Smell of Success, Traffic, and Rosemary's Baby are more that I would recommend.

[legendarymatt92]

Every once in a while, a film is made simply to push the boundaries of what's acceptable, to try and achieve what is becoming harder and harder with a desensitized audience - to shock. Antichrist is one of those films, from a director who has based his career on not catering to what people want, but giving them something they don't. Has his career been an incredible success? Arguably yes, but not always for the right reasons.

It has been widely reported that, during his writing of the script, von Trier fell into an extreme depression and could not work; it is even suggested that, whilst on set, he continually apologised to Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg for not being at his very best. Clearly he was not in the right frame of mind to tackle such an extreme and problematic subject, especially when dealing with the inevitable aftermath that would follow when the film was released; during Cannes, where the film was both praised and condemned by the panel, the ecumenical jury gave the film a special "anti-award" and claimed that it was the "most misogynistic movie from the self proclaimed biggest director in the world". The festival director responded furiously, claiming that the decision calls on the need for censorship. Afterwards, in a Q&A panel, Trier claimed he was the best director in the world in response to a question asking him to justify making such a film, then left the building, refusing to answer any more questions from his "guests" (the journalists).

It has hard to even recommend Antichrist to anyone, even those who love horror, because it's such an odd match of art house sensibilities and mainstream horror conventions that it just never flows correctly - there's no doubt that the film proves Trier is a true provocateur, but there's a lacking in the direction that just seems...off, unlike any of his previous projects. For such an extreme subject, it's handled with such a disregard that it's hard to even think that the director was enthusiastic about this at any stage. It throws together surreal imagery and graphic violence in an effort to convey this "bigger meaning" but there's nothing understandable about it, because the film makes no comment on what it's doing - the evil springs from the female, which is why the jury called it so misogynist, but her husband reacts like no human being ever would, simply ignoring the problems and continuing on the increasingly erratic relationship like usual.

Despite such problems, the film does have occasional redeeming qualities - it looks beautiful, and is shot perfectly, especially the slow motion, black and white Prologue and Epilogue sections. This, and the wonderful performances (especially from Gainsbourg) redeem what is, in my opinion, a poor script and a pretentious idea from a pretentious director.

Watch Antichrist if you want to see what all the "fuss" was about. Don't see it for any artistic merit or viable story.

3/10

[Foggy]

Watched Zero Dark Thirty and I might as well post about it considering the split opinions, controversy and what not.

I walked in not really knowing what to expect, I know I liked the trailer, the shots used and the music was nice but it looked like it was flowing skimp on story (either because there was little story or too much jargon). And as I walked in knowing it ran of 157 mins I was in fear that this was going to drag.

I was completely wrong, it was pretty exhilarating stuff and it felt like I was in a time lapse, where I could feel the films length but I was never disinterested at all at any point, there's a lot of story going on throughout the film and I was always reeling to get the next piece of information. It didn't help that when I walked into the cinema there was zero snow outside and when I came out there was an inch of it (Blackpool doesn't get a lot of snow and it usually doesn't stick so this is a big deal).

The torture controversy is blown way out of proportion, only featuring mostly in the first 20 mins of the film and it leads to a pretty fatal result. The film actually pretty much condones the use of torture as a whole, showing it as despicable as it is. It's a film that put the argument of what's the right thing to do and what is the necessary thing to do and asks where the line is drawn between the two. And it would of been silly not to include such an important aspect in there.

Complaints is that it is quite silly in places (mainly the helicopter crash at the end of the film is a big "Really?!? You're going to take liberties here") and the fact every now and then a recognisable smaller actor will arrive that you've seen before will pop up taking you out of the film. Michael from Lost is in it for example, you keep forgetting he is and then he pops up out of the blue with info.

But really, I'm surprised how much it really did click. Expecting it to be "oh yeah, it was good but typical Oscar stuff" and coming out saying that was genuinely engrossing and WAY better than The Hurt Locker.

9/10

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by jvince

*snip*

Thanks for the list of films. It may just come down to adding every single Criterion in existence at some point.

I think I'm definitely going to keep the disc option after my free month runs out. Too many films I want to see that aren't available anywhere else.

[Romulus]

Django Unchained

I enjoyed this way more than Inglorious Basterds. I think I can attribute this to liking the characters way more in Django. Performances all around were pretty stellar. I also didn't mind the ending of the film (er, last 30 minutes) at all. I think people just wanted the movie to go out with a bang (pun intended). There were many shots throughout the film that I thought were superb, and never really attributed to Tarantino before. For example, when the man gets shot on horseback and we see a close up of the blood splattering the cotton. Cinematography was great to look at.

Of course, being Tarantino, the writing was top notch as well. I felt like at times when watching Inglorious Basterds there would be scenes that Tarantino put in to show "look how good I can write" that really screwed up the flow for me. Here the writing was great but didn't over elaborate on a topic, it kept it at a perfect amount.

Overall I think this might be my favorite film from this year, edging out Beasts of the Southern Wild. Though I think Beasts handles the issue of race better, but that isn't exactly what Django sought to do either.

4.5/5

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Django Unchained

I enjoyed this way more than Inglorious Basterds. I think I can attribute this to liking the characters way more in Django. Performances all around were pretty stellar. I also didn't mind the ending of the film (er, last 30 minutes) at all. I think people just wanted the movie to go out with a bang (pun intended). There were many shots throughout the film that I thought were superb, and never really attributed to Tarantino before. For example, when the man gets shot on horseback and we see a close up of the blood splattering the cotton. Cinematography was great to look at.

Of course, being Tarantino, the writing was top notch as well. I felt like at times when watching Inglorious Basterds there would be scenes that Tarantino put in to show "look how good I can write" that really screwed up the flow for me. Here the writing was great but didn't over elaborate on a topic, it kept it at a perfect amount.

Overall I think this might be my favorite film from this year, edging out Beasts of the Southern Wild. Though I think Beasts handles the issue of race better, but that isn't exactly what Django sought to do either.

4.5/5

I think you're pretty spot on, especially on the point of Tarantino restraining himself from getting too indulgent with his dialogue (although I contribute that to the fact he was disallowed to use pop culture due to the time period).

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

[Show spoiler]

Battleship Potemkin (1925)
dir. Sergei Eisenstein

The Good: Great musical score. Some very impressive camera work, especially for its time.

The Bad: Thin plot. No character development. Some shots are repeatedly used. For a 75 minute film, it feels too long. Blatant Communist propaganda.

The Bottom Line: Influential? Absolutely, without a doubt. A cinematic masterpiece? Hardly. Sure, it pioneered several camera and editing techniques that are still applied today, but the film is seriously lacking in the story/writing department. Worth a watch.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

[Show spoiler]Every once in a while, a film is made simply to push the boundaries of what's acceptable, to try and achieve what is becoming harder and harder with a desensitized audience - to shock. Antichrist is one of those films, from a director who has based his career on not catering to what people want, but giving them something they don't. Has his career been an incredible success? Arguably yes, but not always for the right reasons.

It has been widely reported that, during his writing of the script, von Trier fell into an extreme depression and could not work; it is even suggested that, whilst on set, he continually apologised to Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg for not being at his very best. Clearly he was not in the right frame of mind to tackle such an extreme and problematic subject, especially when dealing with the inevitable aftermath that would follow when the film was released; during Cannes, where the film was both praised and condemned by the panel, the ecumenical jury gave the film a special "anti-award" and claimed that it was the "most misogynistic movie from the self proclaimed biggest director in the world". The festival director responded furiously, claiming that the decision calls on the need for censorship. Afterwards, in a Q&A panel, Trier claimed he was the best director in the world in response to a question asking him to justify making such a film, then left the building, refusing to answer any more questions from his "guests" (the journalists).

It has hard to even recommend Antichrist to anyone, even those who love horror, because it's such an odd match of art house sensibilities and mainstream horror conventions that it just never flows correctly - there's no doubt that the film proves Trier is a true provocateur, but there's a lacking in the direction that just seems...off, unlike any of his previous projects. For such an extreme subject, it's handled with such a disregard that it's hard to even think that the director was enthusiastic about this at any stage. It throws together surreal imagery and graphic violence in an effort to convey this "bigger meaning" but there's nothing understandable about it, because the film makes no comment on what it's doing - the evil springs from the female, which is why the jury called it so misogynist, but her husband reacts like no human being ever would, simply ignoring the problems and continuing on the increasingly erratic relationship like usual.

Despite such problems, the film does have occasional redeeming qualities - it looks beautiful, and is shot perfectly, especially the slow motion, black and white Prologue and Epilogue sections. This, and the wonderful performances (especially from Gainsbourg) redeem what is, in my opinion, a poor script and a pretentious idea from a pretentious director.

Watch Antichrist if you want to see what all the "fuss" was about. Don't see it for any artistic merit or viable story.

3/10

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I agree with the bat about Antichrist.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I know right? Eisenstein is Sooo influential. It's like not liking Birth of a Nation. Come on, these guys were revolutionaries

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Django Unchained

I enjoyed this way more than Inglorious Basterds. I think I can attribute this to liking the characters way more in Django. Performances all around were pretty stellar. I also didn't mind the ending of the film (er, last 30 minutes) at all. I think people just wanted the movie to go out with a bang (pun intended). There were many shots throughout the film that I thought were superb, and never really attributed to Tarantino before. For example, when the man gets shot on horseback and we see a close up of the blood splattering the cotton. Cinematography was great to look at.

Of course, being Tarantino, the writing was top notch as well. I felt like at times when watching Inglorious Basterds there would be scenes that Tarantino put in to show "look how good I can write" that really screwed up the flow for me. Here the writing was great but didn't over elaborate on a topic, it kept it at a perfect amount.

Overall I think this might be my favorite film from this year, edging out Beasts of the Southern Wild. Though I think Beasts handles the issue of race better, but that isn't exactly what Django sought to do either.

4.5/5

I agree on the score, but not where it ranks among Tarantino's other films. Inglorious Basterds was ingenious and warranted it's run time. Whereas Django is essentially a 2:45 exploitation movie. Nothing wrong with that, I love Tarantinian excess (his least film Death Proof is still a 4/5) but there's no doubt he's much too in love with his writing.

That's why I was so blown away by the Master. Where Tarantino makes similar films each time out. Paul Thomas Anderson is not afraid to break free from his past works, I mean they are all so distinct and different from one another. Who would have ever guessed the director of Magnolia and Boogie Nights would follow those up with three radically different films, totally shedding the Scorsese/Altman influence.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I know right? Eisenstein is Sooo influential. It's like not liking Birth of a Nation. Come on, these guys were revolutionaries

I don't like Birth of a Nation I respect it, but I don't like it.

[Foggy]

Following suit from my earlier cinema going experience, I went with the parents to see Lincoln.



I was actually looking forward to Lincoln, I thought it was going to be a pretty good film, it's an area of history I'm not familiar with (the battle for the 14th Ammendment that is, not slavery or the American civil war) so I thought it was going to be interesting.

I was so unbelievably wrong, the film off the bat runs straight into the politics and you have to be riding that train from the get go, or else you're left for dust. I have many friends who studied law and history, and had to learn about American Civil Rights; they would probably be right at home with this. But me, I missed the train and sadly the film goes about politics for a good hour without rest. It doesn't give you the opportunity to latch onto anything emotionally gratifying until an hour in, and once it does the film begins to brighten up, but by then the film has already done too much damage to truly redeem itself.

The direction is off by Spielberg as well, filmed without any sort of zeal, it plays of exactly the thing I really didn't want the film to be, a stuffy period piece with bushy beards and big hats, with most actors pretty much delivering big words that they don't properly understand by emphasising them with hollow importance. Though when the film is struggling Daniel Day Lewis is there conducting the screen to him and grasping your attention, Tommy Lee Jones is also fantastic.

There's an interesting film in Lincoln, politicians bending the rules and some times completely breaking them to get what they believe is right, all pointing at if the ends meet the needs. And sometime Spielberg gets it right by using some witty scenes, but Spielberg is obviously also worried about the fact his film might become a bit to satirical of modern politicians, so he often diverts his attention to more Spielbergian traits like "the African American woman with a single tear strolling down her cheek", or the "look at how awful war is with this gruesome image" and climaxing with an awful directoral decision that really does make you say out loud "really Spielberg, what were you thinking!?!"

Lincoln will work for some if they're already invested in the history (which makes the film a bit redundant in a sense) and if not, like me, you'll have the occasional scene that'll hit the mark and the film as a whole is watchable although a tough spoonful to swallow. But the film will work best as an easy way to teach Law or History students the story of the 14th Amendment in 2 hours and a half, and that, to me, doesn't make it all that good of a film.

6.5/10

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I don't like Birth of a Nation I respect it, but I don't like it.

The films in question are extremely significant in the development of cinematic language. They are astonishing on an technical level and each edit and frame broke new ground. Sure, they are boneheaded & politically incorrect, but there's just so much to learn from them.

I highly recommend the films DW Griffith made immediately after BOAN, it seems as if he was trying to redeem himself from those sins. Intolerance is one of the greatest films ever made.

[Lepidopterous]

Celeste and Jesse Forever

Not another romantic comedy! At least, not quite. Celeste and Jesse Forever is an enjoyable movie about… a divorced couple. Enjoyable because it offers likeable characters and a good balance between drama and comedy. You might expect the "divorced but best friends" concept to be annoying but Rashida Jones and Andy Samberg pull off some great chemistry. Maybe not Silver Linings good, but adorable good. Jones really shines as the lead and Andy Samberg gives off enough goofiness to cut all the tension you would otherwise expect from such an awkward premise. The problem is when Jones tries to be funny and Samberg tries to be taken seriously. Her dramatic acting feels more invested and overpowers his while her comedic effort is overshadowed by his natural humor (although the funniest line in the movie comes from Jones). But this is not much of a problem because Jesse is out of the picture for a good chunk of the movie.

The film drifts for a while but breathes while doing so. Jones co-wrote a character-driven script with a thin plot and stays away from a confining narrative so we can dwell in the current state of the characters. The film manages to focus on a depressed woman while remaining relatively lighthearted.

Celeste and Jesse Forever is a pretty neat indie flick with some heart and sincerity, and still better than other films like it, e.g. Funny People. Worth checking out.

3/5

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Celeste and Jesse Forever

Not another romantic comedy! At least, not quite. Celeste and Jesse Forever is an enjoyable movie about… a divorced couple. Enjoyable because it offers likeable characters and a good balance between drama and comedy. You might expect the "divorced but best friends" concept to be annoying but Rashida Jones and Andy Samberg pull off some great chemistry. Maybe not Silver Linings good, but adorable good. Jones really shines as the lead and Andy Samberg gives off enough goofiness to cut all the tension you would otherwise expect from such an awkward premise. The problem is when Jones tries to be funny and Samberg tries to be taken seriously. Her dramatic acting feels more invested and overpowers his while her comedic effort is overshadowed by his natural humor (although the funniest line in the movie comes from Jones). But this is not much of a problem because Jesse is out of the picture for a good chunk of the movie.

The film drifts for a while but breathes while doing so. Jones co-wrote a character-driven script with a thin plot and stays away from a confining narrative so we can dwell in the current state of the characters. The film manages to focus on a depressed woman while remaining relatively lighthearted.

Celeste and Jesse Forever is a pretty neat indie flick with some heart and sincerity, and still better than other films like it, e.g. Funny People. Worth checking out.

3/5

Would you say it's the best movie Samburg has ever starred in?

[jvince]

Batman & Robin (1997)
dir. Joel Schumacher

The Good: Ummm... It's (so bad, it's) funny?

The Bad: It's so bad, it's funny. Completely embarrassing turns from its all-star cast, especially Thurman and Schwarzenegger. Those awfully puntastic one-liners. Garbage script. May cause severe damage to brain cells. Oh yeah, and bat-nipples.

The Bottom Line: If there's anything redeeming about this monstrous failure, it's that this is one of the best bad movies ever made. Not once has it failed to make me laugh. Four stars for being spectacularly shitty.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Way to not look at their collection and notice you recommended several that they already own.

The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Charade, Anatomy of a Murder, Sweet Smell of Success, Traffic, and Rosemary's Baby are more that I would recommend.

Yeah, I was lazy to browse his collection. At least now, maybe he's more likely gonna check them out after seeing some similar favorites in there.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Complaints is that it is quite silly in places (mainly the helicopter crash at the end of the film is a big "Really?!? You're going to take liberties here") and the fact every now and then a recognisable smaller actor will arrive that you've seen before will pop up taking you out of the film. Michael from Lost is in it for example, you keep forgetting he is and then he pops up out of the blue with info.

Yeah, it is a silly film. The more I think about it, the more I hate it. That helicopter crash was ludicrous. But what I really found hard to believe was that a noted master of "tradecraft" like Bin Laden was unbelievably foolish to stick his head out as they call his name, let alone have no escape plan whatsoever. I mean, that crash was pretty loud.

Originally Posted by Foggy

But really, I'm surprised how much it really did click. Expecting it to be "oh yeah, it was good but typical Oscar stuff" and coming out saying that was genuinely engrossing and WAY better than The Hurt Locker.

Slightly better than The Hurt Locker. I think Bigelow needs to ditch Boal. He's a not that great a writer, imo. Dialogue's good, but he sucks at plotting. I can't believe he's already won an Oscar.

Originally Posted by Romulus

Thanks for the list of films. It may just come down to adding every single Criterion in existence at some point.

I think I'm definitely going to keep the disc option after my free month runs out. Too many films I want to see that aren't available anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Foggy

I don't like Birth of a Nation I respect it, but I don't like it.

Same way I feel about Potemkin. I appreciate well-rounded films a whole lot more.

[surfdude12]

Alien (1979)

Film: 5/5
-this is not my first viewing, but holy crappola, I didn't appreciate it on my first viewing (2 yrs ago or so)
-TERRIFYING!! I was huddled under a blanket like a scared kid in my dark house all alone. Haven't been this scared in years. And no, it was NOT the imagery that did it - it was the PACING...the opening credits with planet shot and EEERIEEE score, the planet descent, the sound of the transmission, the shot of the U-shape ship ...by which time I haven't even seen ANY alien and I'm already terrified! It goes back to the Hitchcock example of a bomb under a table.
-Questions for ALIEN NERDS: (1) in opening shot on ship, the camera pans around the ship (while crew asleep, before tranmission pops up on screen), and a bunch of papers FALL OFF a table as the camera pans what the fack is that? an error of camera knocking papers off table? or is there something already on the ship?? (see 5:46-5:51 in video below!), (2) on the planet, when they look at U-shape Alien ship (TERRIFYING IMAGE), I notice that they have a hand-held camcorder, and realized "THIS IS WHERE THE HAND-HELD FOOTAGE CONCEPT WAS BORN". THere is 30-45 seconds shot of them looking at Alien ship, with camera shaking, etc.
-THEMES: you guys know I love themes and I watched this video on youtube: (SPOILER ALERT):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry4epUu67vc

In this video, the dude talks about themes of

[Show spoiler]sexual fear. He talks about how the ship is called "mother", how the crew (who SCott calls "the 7 babies" in commentary) are sleeping in a womb-like hybernation. He talks about how there are vaginal/birth/sex themes throughout. The one dude gets the alien egg implanted in him and has to give birth to the alien. When Ripley detaches from the main ship at the end, we hear "umbilical detached" from Mother ship audio. When Alien is kicked out the door by Ripley at the end, it is akin to an abortion because it is hanging by a string (umbilical) outside the womb. THe Alien's head is near-identical to a penis and its tail is used in the same manner, when its tail goes between one of teh female crew members legs.

. So tell me what you Alien geeks think?