The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Jasonic]

I'll throw in a short part of my Monsters University review.

"Monsters University isn’t inherently unique in plot, but is still well written and a joy to watch. It’s definitely humorous and has a lot of charm. Out of all of Pixar’s canon, a sequel or prequel to Monsters Inc. was probably the one I would of least wanted, so I can’t say I had the largest of expectations going in, but it’s still a Pixar movie and I knew it was going to be good. It didn’t surprise me or let me down, it was simply the really good movie that I expected of it, just nothing amazing that most would expect of the studio. So has Pixar become “just another” animation studio? No, they are still the best at what they do. Each new movie may not be as good or original as the last, but they still do an impressive job with each title in comparison to what most others are doing in animation. I enjoyed Monsters University regardless of where I feel it compares to the studio’s other films, and it’s another great entry to the Pixar lineup." - 8.5/10

Please visit my blog for the full review

[jvince]

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
dir. Marc Webb

The Good: Andrew Garfield IS Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Wonderful chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone. Some nice POV action scenes.

The Bad: Bad writing. Lots of cheesy moments. Iffy CGI. Rhythm and pacing is off. Ifans' Dr. Connors is nothing but a lame rip-off of Raimi's Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus. And don't get me started on the Lizard's design... Yuck.

The Bottom Line: There's nothing amazing about The Amazing Spider-Man. It's ultimately just an unnecessary reboot.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I think you and me are on the same page with the one JVince, there's moments that work but the whole structure is lousy.

Originally Posted by Foggy

But if they got rid of the sub plot we wouldn't of had the classic cinematic moment where the guy with no legs punches one of the aliens teeth out.

Lol, that scene was so stupid.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

^^^
Phoenix was so forgettable,

Yes.

Originally Posted by Foggy

It is the one film in the series that feels pretty unsubstantial, but it's way better than Goblet of Fire and Half Blood Prince.

No.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well I grew up with them, so they're a bit more built into my mentality.

Philosopher's Stone/none of this Sorcerer's Stone crap) Enjoyable but rather unwatchable via how much it's dated and those lousy kid actors.

Chamber of Secrets) Actually my favourite of the films, they get rid of most the lousy CGI and replace with proper effects, it's pretty scary and a lot of fun. Plus giant spiders and giant snake, what's not to like.

Prisoner of Azkaban) Technically the best, although the direction is a bit too flashy and in your face. Noticeable for the fact the series begins to grow up.

Goblet of Fire) Don't like it, the whole main premise of the film is pretty flimsy, Harry isn't allowed to take part in the tasks but has to because a f**king cup says so. I wouldn't mind but these leads to all the bad stuff in the last four books/films.

Order of Phoenix) It's good and low key avoiding to be too flashy and cuts most the needless crap out of the book, considering it's the longest book but the shortest film.

Half Blood Prince) Rubbish, Harry Potter and Co. try to get their end away for 2 hours straight. Oh and that Half Blood Prince thing...mentioned 3 times and so passively revealed it might as well not of been mentioned at all.

Part 1) Pretty atmospheric and down beat film, does well with what it's allowed to do.

Part 2) Fun finale, although the greenscreening in some of the scenes is absolutely unforgivable for a mainstream billion dollar franchise like this one.

Azkaban is the best Potter film. Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Half-Blood Prince, and Goblet of Fire were pretty good too, imo. Order of the Phoenix is the worst, for sure.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Those Hollywood bigwigs stealing my hard work!

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Foggy, you should lean up your sig a bit (do the whole text link thing)

Like this:
Come and give your support to the people at BDTV Forum!!!

My Letterboxd Account

Originally Posted by Foggy

I would do, but I like the colours and I don't like the dullness of hyperlinks.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

You can add color I'm sure.

Edit: I guess you can't

Yes, you can.

Come and give your support to the people at BDTV Forum!!!

My Letterboxd Account

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Pretty much. I was never that big of a Wes Anderson fan (had only seen two of his films prior to Moonrise Kingdom), but now I'm going to watch as many of his as I can after watching Moonrise Kingdom.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Correct.

[Riddhi2011]

I love the Harry Potter series (both books and films).
My personal favourites are The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Deathly Hallows Part 1. Then-
Deathly Hallows Part 2 and Order of the Phoenix, then comes
The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, and lastly
The Half Blood Prince(the least enjoyable, gloomy and depressing to the point of irritation), and
The Goblet of Fire, which to me is the WORST film in the franchise, dry and unemotional, coupled with the worst music in the entire series!

The most action packed is of course DH Part 2, and a fitting emotional finale, but I think they could've included certain things from the book that would've enhanced the impact a bit more.

Deathly Hallows Part 1 is one of my favourite HP movies because of its Road-movie esque treatment. This is a Harry Potter that completely stands on its own as a solo movie, none of the others do(maybe apart from Philosopher's Stone, but probably not)!

[legendarymatt92]

Many of you already know A Good Day to Die Hard from both critical and audience reviews, on here and other sites, so I won't bother going into the background and details about it. Instead, I'll just skip to my thoughts on it at this half-way stage.

Firstly, you'll notice it's not a good sign that I've stopped the film to have some respite from it, and I agree with you. The film, as anyone who watches it will find, is relentlessly action-packed; you have brief moments in which some badly captured dialogue provides slight relief before it's back to the excessive explosions and eardrum piercing shooting once more. Director John Moore seems to have decided that one-upping not only every film in the Die Hard series but every action film released ever is a good idea, and goes about it by throwing as much cacophonous sound and flame-laced imagery at the screen as possible and hoping the audience are amazed into some kind of action-induced stupor. That, John, is not the case -- in fact, it plays out more as the pinnacle of boredom, occasionally punctured by one interesting shot or sequence, before settling back down into below mediocre territory again.

The actual, minimal conversation that made it into the final cut provides an excuse for as many humorous moments as possible, even when cars are getting flipped and innocent people are dying (hell, it only matters about that one super-cool, hilarious line, right?) and proves that this film cares nothing for logic or reason, just for pure adrenaline.

Oh, and what's up with that damn moving camera all the time? It's as if the cinematographer was having a stroke and was just ordered to carry on filming.

Does anybody want me to do their cleaning for them or something? I could hoover? I seriously don't want to go back to this mess.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Firstly, you'll notice it's not a good sign that I've stopped the film to have some respite from it, and I agree with you. The film, as anyone who watches it will find, is relentlessly action-packed; you have brief moments in which some badly captured dialogue provides slight relief before it's back to the excessive explosions and eardrum piercing shooting once more. Director John Moore seems to have decided that one-upping not only every film in the Die Hard series but every action film released ever is a good idea, and goes about it by throwing as much cacophonous sound and flame-laced imagery at the screen as possible and hoping the audience are amazed into some kind of action-induced stupor. That, John, is not the case -- in fact, it plays out more as the pinnacle of boredom, occasionally punctured by one interesting shot or sequence, before settling back down into below mediocre territory again.

As much as I like action scenes, and as much as I liked the mass carnage in AGDTDH, I couldn't shake the feeling that it's just a bunch of random stuff slapped together. For the big car chase scene, it seems like one show would show one street, the next shot shows a completely different street, and then the next one would be a highway, and then the next one was by a river or something...

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

The actual, minimal conversation that made it into the final cut provides an excuse for as many humorous moments as possible, even when cars are getting flipped and innocent people are dying (hell, it only matters about that one super-cool, hilarious line, right?) and proves that this film cares nothing for logic or reason, just for pure adrenaline.

Right on!!!

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Oh, and what's up with that damn moving camera all the time? It's as if the cinematographer was having a stroke and was just ordered to carry on filming.

Ugh, yeah, that is another bad thing.

I've yet to revisit this film, but I am curious to see if the extended cut is any better.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Does anybody want me to do their cleaning for them or something? I could hoover? I seriously don't want to go back to this mess.

There's no shame in giving up halfway through on this one. There isn't much more to see.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: The Fireman's Ball

I rented this as part of a deal with Abdrewes in another thread; since he went and saw Howard the Duck, I had to see this. Thanks for the recommendation!

This short, quaint, and simple Czech film, is all about a ball for firemen, obviously. The real twist is that small problems emerge, and these old geezer firemen start bickering and making more problems, until the whole thing becomes a fiasco. Mild hilarity ensues.

There isn't much to this story or characters, but it is fundamentally sound in the way it presents one funny thing after another. The movie culminates with the firemen having to put out an actual fire; the scene with a single dude shovelling snow uselessly at a raging fire might very well be the defining scene of the whole movie, and what it's about.

This film has adequate photography and editing. Acting and writing appear authentic. Writing is okay. Sets, props, and costumes are very simple and spartan, but used effectively. Music is used effectively too.

Not quite as rambunctious as that ending party scene in Play Time, but this film is still quite amusing and cleverly-built.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

As much as I like action scenes, and as much as I liked the mass carnage in AGDTDH, I couldn't shake the feeling that it's just a bunch of random stuff slapped together. For the big car chase scene, it seems like one show would show one street, the next shot shows a completely different street, and then the next one would be a highway, and then the next one was by a river or something...

Right on!!!

Ugh, yeah, that is another bad thing.

I've yet to revisit this film, but I am curious to see if the extended cut is any better.

There's no shame in giving up halfway through on this one. There isn't much more to see.

I think I've given up; the download I had decided that even it had had enough of me watching it and didn't work any more. I will watch it all at some point since I really need to in order to review it.

[legendarymatt92]

"And don't make promises, because you know you can't keep them..."

The Good Points: Thrilling and suspenseful. Anderson's assured direction. A good performance from Berry, and fantastic ones from Breslin and Eklund. Intense and creepy. For a film centred much around a telephone call, it does a great job of keeping interest and entertainment up.

The Bad Points: Ludicrous and implausible turn in the third act -- who thought it was a good idea to throw away all the tension and turn it into a stupid, generic vigilante movie? Some plot inconsistencies.


From interesting, thrilling and somewhat exciting to stupid and conventional in the blink of an eye, The Call is a showcase for Anderson's gripping direction and the inspired emotional punch of the storyline until it, rather unfortunately, goes off the rails and completely misunderstands its own genre.

5.5/10

[jvince]

Catfish (2010)
dir. Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman

The Good: Timely subject matter. Engrossing from start to end. The twist. Decent replay value.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: I don't really give a shit if Catfish is real or fake (much like the wildly amusing Exit Through the Gift Shop). This is undeniably some gripping stuff right here.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Many of you already know A Good Day to Die Hard from both critical and audience reviews, on here and other sites, so I won't bother going into the background and details about it. Instead, I'll just skip to my thoughts on it at this half-way stage.

Firstly, you'll notice it's not a good sign that I've stopped the film to have some respite from it, and I agree with you. The film, as anyone who watches it will find, is relentlessly action-packed; you have brief moments in which some badly captured dialogue provides slight relief before it's back to the excessive explosions and eardrum piercing shooting once more. Director John Moore seems to have decided that one-upping not only every film in the Die Hard series but every action film released ever is a good idea, and goes about it by throwing as much cacophonous sound and flame-laced imagery at the screen as possible and hoping the audience are amazed into some kind of action-induced stupor. That, John, is not the case -- in fact, it plays out more as the pinnacle of boredom, occasionally punctured by one interesting shot or sequence, before settling back down into below mediocre territory again.

The actual, minimal conversation that made it into the final cut provides an excuse for as many humorous moments as possible, even when cars are getting flipped and innocent people are dying (hell, it only matters about that one super-cool, hilarious line, right?) and proves that this film cares nothing for logic or reason, just for pure adrenaline.

Oh, and what's up with that damn moving camera all the time? It's as if the cinematographer was having a stroke and was just ordered to carry on filming.

Does anybody want me to do their cleaning for them or something? I could hoover? I seriously don't want to go back to this mess.

I saw you gave the film 2/10 on the Top 2013 thread, watch the rest and you'll find out why I gave it a 1/10

(It also doesn't help that my AGDTDH review on my letterboxd is my highest liked and one of my most popular, and was my most popular until I posted my Serious Man review up.)

Oh, and then watch Keith Lemon: The Film if you want to see something that makes AGDTDH look fairly compassionate and competent.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I saw you gave the film 2/10 on the Top 2013 thread, watch the rest and you'll find out why I gave it a 1/10

(It also doesn't help that my AGDTDH review on my letterboxd is my highest liked and one of my most popular, and was my most popular until I posted my Serious Man review up.)

Oh, and then watch Keith Lemon: The Film if you want to see something that makes AGDTDH look fairly compassionate and competent.

I only gave it two out of ten because I was so surprised at how competently shot the action sequences were; some moments were actually, um, rather interestingly, visual. And it was entertaining -- in an over-the-top, bombastic kind of way -- for about 3 minutes, until it was clear that everything was just going to either get blown up, shot at or thrown in the air dramatically for the whole 100 minute run-time.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I only gave it two out of ten because I was so surprised at how competently shot the action sequences were; some moments were actually, um, rather interestingly, visual. And it was entertaining -- in an over-the-top, bombastic kind of way -- for about 3 minutes, until it was clear that everything was just going to either get blown up, shot at or thrown in the air dramatically for the whole 100 minute run-time.

But you'll never know how they manage to anti-radiate Chernobyl.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Foggy

But you'll never know how they manage to anti-radiate Chernobyl.

Please...please tell me that's just a joke and doesn't happen. It can't, it just can't.


Oh no, it probably does...

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Please...please tell me that's just a joke and doesn't happen. It can't, it just can't.


Oh no, it probably does...

You're going to have to look and see.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

Catfish (2010)
dir. Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman

The Good: Timely subject matter. Engrossing from start to end. The twist. Decent replay value.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: I don't really give a shit if Catfish is real or fake (much like the wildly amusing Exit Through the Gift Shop). This is undeniably some gripping stuff right here.

But, dont you mean "The twist(s)?

[Abdrewes]

Great filmic satire is often defined by a willingness to draw from a wide array of rich subjects and a sense of forward momentum. However, Sophia Coppola's follow up to the underrated Somewhere unfortunately has neither quality. Either the source material is too thin to warrant a feature length film or insufficient consideration was put into finding an interesting angle of approach. The only level of commentary is too flaccid to warrant a place in a Starship Troopers newsreel.

Based on Nancy Jo Sales' Vanity Fair article, "The Suspects wore Louboutins," The Bling Ring follows the nefarious adventures of a group of tabloid obsessed teenagers as they ransack the homes of high profile celebrities. They are led by the conniving Rebecca (Katie Chang), whom uses search engines and tabloid websites to locate the addresses of Paris Hilton, Audrina Patridge, Lindsay Lohan, Megan Fox and Rachel Bilson.

To drive its point home, the film utilizes various tension robbing narrative devices: crosscutting between the robberies and the hours before their trial; and brief montages of paparazzi adorning the group's idols. Seemingly their placement is supposed to reveal the fallacy of their collective aspirations, but like the rest of the film it manages to feel surface deep and redundant. Though we are given a front row seat to witness the heist of over $3,000,000 worth of designer clothes, paintings, rugs, cash and a pair of red high heels, the film proves to be a tasking hour and a half of mayhem before the inevitable fallout. The film's icy detachment proves to be a fatal flaw as I longed for the moment the justice system finally catches up with them.

Untangling the knotted web of sympathy and criticism Sophia Coppola casts on the gang, proves to be quite a challenge. Ambiguity is one thing, but complete indifference is another. Harris Savides cinematography only complicates matters. The economically crisp long takes with impeccable choreography lends the film a slick allure, but one that doesn't complicate the audience's relationship with the proceedings.

Take for example the single most impressive shot in the film: an unbroken take of a spacious contemporary Hollywood Hills mansion and the surrounding neighborhood coupled with a creeping zoom. We witness Rebecca and boyfriend (Israel Broussard) ferret through both lavish floors, pocketing anything in sight and eventually exiting through the side entrance. On a visual level, I was drawn in, but there was little to care for or be confronted by. This is social commentary without perspective.

The celebrity fascination that has pervaded our culture is a worthy topic, but Sophia Coppola's talents are mismatched for the material. She is too full hearted a humanist to craft biting satire. Her best films are centered around, and slightly critical of, characters that are either consumed by the media (top of the carts music in The Virgin Suicides) or are directly linked to it (Bob Harris acting in a Sartori whisky commercial in Lost in Translation, Johnny Marco doing press tours in Somewhere), but that wasn't the sole level of interest. Those films were also full of warmth and sensitivity. When those qualities are stripped away, no amount of technical mastery can compensate.

½

[Foggy]

World War Z

It's pronounced ZED you silly Americans, not ZEE!

While watching this film, I felt my fingers twitching, my thumbs where moving in rotation and index fingers where pushing inwards. What was this strange sensation? Why am I unable to control what is going on on-screen?

Oh yeah, this isn't a videogame, this is a movie.

So, ok, I have been playing The Last of Us a lot this week, which probably factored into my judgement a little bit (the fact the game tells a more compelling and less predictable story makes me sad, why couldn't that be the film Brad Pitt made) but the film has a very set piece heavy structure that cripples the film from becoming anything great.

You start off with Brad Pitt as Jerry America on an average day, with his married set of boobies and his two children, Asthma girl and Blanket girl. In which everything goes tits up an we have our first action scene where we run around avoiding explosions, then we have our stealth bit where we sneak around avoiding more zombies in an apartment building, where we then get another cut scene telling us why we have to go back and fight more zombies. We then have another shooty bit, followed by another cut scene and stealthy bit. Rinse wash and repeat for whole motion picture.

And while it doesn't make for a strong movie, it builds towards a decent entertaining flick. There's some clever quirks and some decent scares, along with some decent special effects and makeup work. The film as a whole is suspenseful, although it lacks any kind of interesting stories and characters.

Of course the film has to suffer for such sins, and sadly this hits the ending, which is underwhelming at the highest. No clever twists or meaningful conclusions, just a neat tie that could be made into a sequel if this actually makes money after the cluster**** of production this thing had.

And no, there will be no pointing fingers at Damon Lindelof in the review, the guy deserves a break.

A few final points. Acting is decent, shaky cam is tolerable, Marc Foster proves he can direct a decent action film after the disaster of Quadratic of Shoelace.

And if you get Muse to help out on your soundtrack, don't just play one of their songs on endless loop as a motif, actually use those guys, they're awesome!

At the end of the day, there is nothing hateful to World War Z, I actually had a good time with the zombie flick, but there is nothing noteworthy here, and I'll probably forget about it come the time I complete The Last of Us on New Game +.

6/10

[Abdrewes]

^^^
Had a really good time with WWZ. the sequence where Bamrad and two others have to get past a room of zombies was delightful...and the Pepsi gag

(I was okay with the ending)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

World War Z

It's pronounced ZED you silly Americans, not ZEE!

Wait, what? Who's Zed? Why are we having a world war around him?

Originally Posted by Foggy

While watching this film, I felt my fingers twitching, my thumbs where moving in rotation and index fingers where pushing inwards. What was this strange sensation? Why am I unable to control what is going on on-screen?

Oh yeah, this isn't a videogame, this is a movie.

So, ok, I have been playing The Last of Us a lot this week, which probably factored into my judgement a little bit (the fact the game tells a more compelling and less predictable story makes me sad, why couldn't that be the film Brad Pitt made) but the film has a very set piece heavy structure that cripples the film from becoming anything great.

Sounds like another testament to how far video games have come, while films have regressed.

Originally Posted by Foggy

You start off with Brad Pitt as Jerry America on an average day, with his married set of boobies and his two children, Asthma girl and Blanket girl. In which everything goes tits up an we have our first action scene where we run around avoiding explosions, then we have our stealth bit where we sneak around avoiding more zombies in an apartment building, where we then get another cut scene telling us why we have to go back and fight more zombies. We then have another shooty bit, followed by another cut scene and stealthy bit. Rinse wash and repeat for whole motion picture.

And while it doesn't make for a strong movie, it builds towards a decent entertaining flick. There's some clever quirks and some decent scares, along with some decent special effects and makeup work. The film as a whole is suspenseful, although it lacks any kind of interesting stories and characters.

Of course the film has to suffer for such sins, and sadly this hits the ending, which is underwhelming at the highest. No clever twists or meaningful conclusions, just a neat tie that could be made into a sequel if this actually makes money after the cluster**** of production this thing had.

And no, there will be no pointing fingers at Damon Lindelof in the review, the guy deserves a break.

A few final points. Acting is decent, shaky cam is tolerable, Marc Foster proves he can direct a decent action film after the disaster of Quadratic of Shoelace.

And if you get Muse to help out on your soundtrack, don't just play one of their songs on endless loop as a motif, actually use those guys, they're awesome!

At the end of the day, there is nothing hateful to World War Z, I actually had a good time with the zombie flick, but there is nothing noteworthy here, and I'll probably forget about it come the time I complete The Last of Us on New Game +.

6/10

Sounds like pretty much what I'm expect: all action, little substance. I was hopeful that it would be great, given the good reviews, but after reading this my enthusiasm has waned a bit. I'll probably still try and catch it in theaters though; I'm especially intrigued to see how those last 40 minutes or so of reshooting turned out.