The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jvince]

4/5 from both Silent and Al?

Kinda intrigued by this now. Hated the first one though.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

4/5 from both Silent and Al?

Kinda intrigued by this now. Hated the first one though.

Don't watch it.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

4/5 from both Silent and Al?

Kinda intrigued by this now. Hated the first one though.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Don't watch it.

First one's still the best, so if you didn't like that one, I rightfully can't recommend the sequel.

There is one thing to see it for: Eva Green. Even then, it might be better to wait for a rental or streaming or something.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

First one's still the best, so if you didn't like that one, I rightfully can't recommend the sequel.

There is one thing to see it for: Eva Green. Even then, it might be better to wait for a rental or streaming or something.

Completely agree with Al here. It's a good time in my eyes, but it isn't nearly as great as the first installment.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

First one's still the best, so if you didn't like that one, I rightfully can't recommend the sequel.

There is one thing to see it for: Eva Green. Even then, it might be better to wait for a rental or streaming or something.

Originally Posted by SilentDawn

Completely agree with Al here. It's a good time in my eyes, but it isn't nearly as great as the first installment.

Yeah, I'll probably just wait for it on cable.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Don't watch it.

Okay, boss.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Yeah, I'll probably just wait for it on cable.



Okay, boss.

There's just no point, if you don't like the first film this is just that but a lot less graspable. Plus it's probably out of cinemas now anyway.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

There's just no point, if you don't like the first film this is just that but a lot less graspable. Plus it's probably out of cinemas now anyway.

Yeah, pretty much more of the same, but less punchy, slower, and with stories that introduce continuity errors and iffy or pointless plot directions.

Thanks to the sequel, I now kinda look at the two movies as less literal stories and more expressionistic and immaterial, because there's no other way to explain why Marv came back from the dead and keeps getting drug around into every story (including Nancy's sequel, which doesn't really jive with the first movie's scenes). Or why Dwight magically transformed from Josh Brolin into Clive Owen over the years. And, what is Bruce Willis doing in this movie? Eh, it's a lot easier to assume that they're all basically in hell and have to relive their cycles of violence over and over again. So they can make more sequels.

That's my fancy interpretation of it. I kinda like the movie precisely because it is slower, but I can see how other folks find it boring. I actually thought the opening Just Another Saturday Night segment went way too fast.

[Diesel]

No review today....but I did just purchase my new 50" Samsung LED

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

No review today....but I did just purchase my new 50" Samsung LED

Congrats! What's your review that?

I upgraded my TV last year: went from a humble 32" Hitachi to a 55" LG LED with passive 3D. I think it looks phenomenal; I'm continuously impressed by how clear and detailed games and Blu-Rays look on a big screen.

[Pizzamorg]

Just rewatched 3:10 to Yuma:

Most classic westerns, be they spaghetti or silver gun, can't even come close to the bombast of the modern action genre but they also don't need too either. Always gorgeously orchestrated, tightly choreographed, and wonderfully shot the westerns of old played out more like stylish dance sequences, you didn't need the blood, explosions or sensationalism because it was well made enough to rise above that. Sadly Mangold attempts to make his western a little more contemporary. From dodgy CG explosions, to moments of surprising gore and a general sense of chaos in a sort of A-Team sense, that for every thousandth bullet shot, someone might topple over.

He also decides to do away with the gorgeous style of the westerns of old, technically constructing it like a modern actual film too, in the worst possible way. Editing is so fast, erratic and slapdash most sequences are completely incoherent. The brief moments when the film does slow down enough to show what is actually happening, the camera is so all over the place and so desperately in need of a tripod, I'm left wondering if maybe I got a pirate copy where someone shot the actual film on their mobile while getting a blowy in the back of the cinema. This modern trend never really bothered me, but it's really hard to ignore on Bluray.

Bale is one of the best actors of our generation and once again this film proves that that isn't hyperbole, but truth. The performance he brings to Dan Evans is canyon deep, yet richly nuanced, which rewards each watch. His character reveals are perfectly paced, and always feel natural, I never once feel like he's just spouting dialogue written by someone else, I believe he's a real person.

Sadly, about the only "negative" of the performance is it's so stupendous he dwarfs the entire cast in his shadow. Ben Foster gets to have some fun as Charlie Prince, and the character isn't without some depth but since the action mostly sucks, he's mostly wasted. And speaking of Wade himself Russell Crowe is trying so damn hard, bless him, but he is left with a much too inconsistently written character, with baffling motivations, that I found him very hard to enjoy, even with the solid performance.

It's funny how things change when you're older, when I was a teen I would revisit this film over and over for the swagger of Charlie Prince and that indulgent final shootout but as an adult I found the action pretty bland overall, and actually stayed for the fantastic character of Dan Evans and what Bale brings to the role. Not my favourite western, not by a country mile, but it's worth watching for Bale at least once. Really though, if you want to gain a whole new audience for the Western, we need more Django Unchained, less 3:10 to Yuma. I'm sorry.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

There's just no point, if you don't like the first film this is just that but a lot less graspable. Plus it's probably out of cinemas now anyway.

Originally Posted by Diesel

No review today....but I did just purchase my new 50" Samsung LED

Nice!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

No review today....but I did just purchase my new 50" Samsung LED

And you didn't buy me one too?

[SilentDawn]

My review of My Neighbor Totoro:

Magical, charming and purifying; My Neighbor Totoro is simply one of the finest animated films of all time. Full of compelling and interesting characters, spectacular and beautiful visuals, a marvelous musical score, and a story that feels both enchanting and grounded; those attributes combine to make for a scrumptious and delightful piece of cinema.

Hayao Miyazaki tenderly constructs both a coming-of-age tale as well as a statement on the longevity of innocence with whimsy and ease. Both the hand-drawn visuals and the story itself contribute to the lived-in and alluring feel that My Neighbor Totoro pulls off so well. Never does the film resort to emotional toying or tonal shifts, but instead it dips its foot in slight danger while still keeping the charm and innocence oozing from the frame. That's probably the greatest positive about My Neighbor Totoro, because it brings both a story that tells important messages as well as fascinating younger audiences.

For children, the greatest part in this wondrous piece of cinema is the little band of creatures. Sweet, gentle, and believable; these superb critters can make even the most cynical adult cry in the midst of their subtle power and their lovely attention to detail. Totoro, the titular creature, is just delightfully crafted and glorious to watch. His moments with the two little girls are magical to say the least.

The landscape of rural Japan is a character in and of itself. Vast and mountainous clouds, grand and detailed fields, small and "haunted" homes; the locations in this film are terrific. And what's even better is how the two little girls interact with this environment. Exploring a new house, with dark crevices and frightening corners is a nostalgic sequence to behold. Finding a secret passage in the nearby forest feels just as exciting as when you discovered one in your childhood. The film throughout is built on small and seemingly minuscule moments, yet they are brought with such realism and beauty that it couldn't be more convincing and fantastic to watch.

Overall, I can't recommend My Neighbor Totoro enough. The animation, the story, the characters, the magic and the statements on slowly-slipping innocence and childhood culminates in a touching and vibrant masterpiece, one that can and should stand side-by-side cinema's greatest works of art.

5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Rewatched The Amazing Spider-Man on the fancy new 4-disc 3D Blu-Ray set. The film holds up better than I thought it would. Old review still applies:
--------------------
It’s hard to approach this movie on its own merits; it came out only ten years since Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man film, and only five years since his series was rounded off in Spider-Man 3. With these films still fresh in the consciousness, one can’t help but to approach this reboot with the forethought that it’s completely frivolous and unnecessary, especially since it covers some of the same ground as the first original Spider-Man film. Chances are that your decision to see and enjoy this film will be entirely biased based on your views on this, and your opinion on the other Spidey films. Hated Tobey McGuire and Sam Raimi’s cartoonish style? Then perhaps this reboot will satisfy you better. Otherwise, you might really will think it’s unnecessary.

If you can push your memory of the other films out of your head, The Amazing Spider-Man is a perfectly serviceable blockbuster. It has its share of action and special effects, especially toward the end with the climactic duel between Spider-Man and the villain. There are some fun heroics in the middle of the film. Even when Spidey isn’t kicking butt and taking names, the movie’s comedy is successfully funny and the melodrama/romance is not too overbearing. If anything, I felt this movie’s drama was more entertaining than in the other Spider-Man films, thanks largely to the film’s style and acting, but I’m sure other viewers may disagree. The pacing is admittedly not perfect; some parts whiz by and skim over some plot points, while other parts take their time. The best that can be said is that the film rarely drags.

The story is familiar territory, albeit told differently. It may irk some viewers to have to sit through Peter Parker’s drama all over again; I also found it a little disconcerting that many details have been withheld, presumably to be revealed in a sequel. Still, the film does a fine job of telling the origin story, detailing the main character’s transformation into a superhero, and establishing all the characters and their relationships. In fact, character development is where the film excels: Peter Parker (and in turn Spider-Man himself) is a far stronger character, showing a broad range of emotions. It is a blast to watch his wisecracks and his attitude, but he does show a perfectly serious demeanor when necessary.

Filmed with solid, quality photography, the film looks stylish, without being cartoony like Sam Raimi’s films. The editing is good most of the time, with only a few parts that appeared choppy. Acting is pleasing; Andrew Garfield is impeccable as Peter Parker, Emma Stone makes for a perfectly likable love interest, and Rhys Ifans does his best with the villain. The writing is pretty decent. This film features plenty of good-looking sets, props, and costumes. There are some special effects that don’t look that good, but most hold up. Music is pretty decent.

Ultimately, I felt it was a good film, and I really can’t say whether I prefer this one or Sam Raimi’s films better. As it is, I like them all pretty equally. As for recommending The Amazing Spiderman to anybody else, I would only recommend a rental, because your enjoyment will depend on many variables.

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

Recommendation: Rental.

The Blu-Ray looks and sounds phenomenal. 3-D looks good most of the time; some of the stuff coming towards the camera won't be totally in focus, and some scenes are rather flat, but everything else looks really sharp and clear.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5, 3D: 3.5/5

[Pizzamorg]

Just rewatched one of my personal favourites, My Name is Bruce:

People have criticised the persona of Bruce Campbell in the film but I can't help but feel the washed up ******* he presents himself as in this film is a vulnerable glimpse into how he sees himself when he looks in the mirror in the morning. For such a peppy, funny movie, there is this heavy air of regret and sadness hanging in the air too.

A promising future seemed set in stone for his career with the release of Army of Darkness but he never seemed to go anywhere and after two decades of low budget films that rarely even made it to DVD, My Name is Bruce, sadly, at times feels like a last resort. It's almost like he believes that the audience is all he has which is as flattering as it is heartbreaking. You also can't help but feel that he believes somewhere along the way, he deserved more than he got and he's probably right.

And no, the whole "performer bearing their soul for the audiences voyeuristic fantasies" is as old as time itself but the difference is, I care about Campbell. Well I care about him as much as I can care about a person I know only by proxy through the characters they play and that makes a big difference.

Sadly about the only other person who stands out in the cast is Grace Thorsen, which - as sexist as it sounds - only stands out for her breasts, which are so disproportional for her body she looks like an anime character. The rest of the cast are mainly made up of Campbell's friends or previous costars and are there more for a fun nod, than to try and sweep at awards. The characters are mostly forgettable but the gags are unforgettable.

It's often criticised for its low budget look, yet it looks higher budget than the whole Evil Dead trilogy. Sadly Campbell isn't much of a horror, or action, director so a lot of the film outside of the gags falls a little flat. There are a few well staged sequences but whenever he realises he's done a sequence well he'll just rely on that magic and try and recreate it over and over. I know they didn't have much of a budget for this but when you have a Chinese God of war I kinda expected a bit more than endless heads rolling. Even his movie, within his movie, had laser guns!

Overall though, I don't think My Name is Bruce is a bad film, out of all the schlock cinema I've seen I'd go as far to say it's some of the best. I'd sooner dust off my copy of My Name is Bruce than any of the Evil Dead trilogy even.

This is mainly because it's absolutely hilarious and not in some ironic sense but in that it has genuinely well written, well timed and well performed comedy that is completely intentional and spot on. I guess not every B-Movie needs to be laughed at, some can be laughed with. The humour holds out under the scrutiny of multiple watches too and I guess it helps that I'm quite a big fan, so the humorous nods to Campbell's career are so plentiful I'm still finding new ones to laugh about on each watch. And I'll keep coming back for new laughs later!

[surfdude12]

Boyhood

3/5

Major letdown.

I think it was all the hype going in = expectations too high

It wasn't a bad movie - I enjoyed it.

It just never stirred me that much.

Yes, it had scene after scene that was designed to strike the childhood nostaligia emotional chords, but it felt like it was trying too much. Almost like it was just going through a "greatest hits" checklist of childhood nostalgia, without some other direction or purpose.

Also, the acting was weak. The characters "emotional temperature" never seemed to even rise above a 6/10 throughout the entire film. Hence, here I was waiting for emotional drama/intensity, and continuously felt disappointed (again, maybe my own fault for the expectations). The main character looked (and acted) more and more like Chrysten Hayden (star wars dude) as he aged, which didn't help.

Also, I (unfairly) compared it to Tree of Life, a childhood nostalgic film that struck every chord in me and then some, because Malick used subletly to do it, which IMO is always more powerful. Give the viewer the tools and le tthe viewer create the experience...don't do the work for them.

[SilentDawn]

My review of Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now:

Vibrant, shadowy, methodical, and brilliantly insane; Apocalypse Now might just be the finest film from Francis Ford Coppola's filmography. It is a cinematic experience like none other; a journey into the heart of the human soul, with darkness and depravity lurking in every pitch-black corner.

The direction by Francis Ford Coppola is genius. With a variety of textured close-ups, wide and grand battle shots, and stunning moments of beauty; Coppola crafts a slow and subtle film that is easy to get lost in.

The cinematography by Vittorio Storaro is the finest ever committed to film. No exaggeration, no hyperbole; there is no finer accomplishment in the history of film when it comes to cinematography. The lush green and orange hues, the mushy and endless blacks, the deserted and dusty browns, the sudden splashes of light, the sparks of flares, the immaculate foliage of the jungle; all of those aspects combine to make for a masterpiece of visual form. It deserves to be put up in the ranks of Bach and Michelangelo. Yes, I'm serious.

The casting is just wonderful, with Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper being standouts in a field of many. When the camera focuses on Brando's or Martin's expression as they fade in and out of darkness, I'm mesmerized.

The story, based loosely on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, is a revelation of both storytelling and visual themes. John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola bring the style of the novel and inject it into the setting of the Vietnam War, and it works because many of the same themes in the novel were ever-present in Vietnam. That mishmash of visual poetry and masterful layering of motifs equals a film that has just as much literary power as visual gravitas.

The setting of Vietnam is simultaneously disgusting and sublimely colorful. Depicted masterfully, here is a world that is both tantalizing and frightening. Yet it is a environment that we can't help but peer into, hopefully not falling too deep into the allure of the massive jungle. The massive trees, the distressing river, the hidden enemies;it is a setting that is used to its fullest.

Overall, how much more can be said about Apocalypse Now that hasn't already been shouted to the heavens? Simply put, it is one of the essential films of our time. It is a film to learn from, and a film to study. Ambitious, grand, and intimate; it is unrivaled in its accomplishment and execution. Take the ride, you won't regret it.

5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
(rough draft)

Although it seemed senseless to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so quickly after Sam Raimi's trilogy, I found myself enjoying The Amazing Spider-Man on its own merits. It may not be as breezy as Raimi's work, but it put its heart in the right place to flesh out the characters and their drama more.

Inevitably, this sequel came along to continue the new saga of Peter Parker. Right from the start, something about it felt off. I found myself flabbergasted at the opening action scenes, in which a flashback shows Richard Parker struggling to use a laptop on a crashing airplane, before fast-forwarding to a high-speed pursuit where the Russian mafia steals plutonium (during which, a dozen cop cars chase a single truck, but only Spider-Man can stop them, obviously). It struck me immediately that all this is...stupid! And it flies in the face of what's meant to be a more earnest and serious Spider-Man movie, but it seems to have quickly resorted to using supremely brainless action and endless cliches. Seriously, how is it this easy for thugs to steal plutonium? How can a dozen cop cars not stop them? Why does Spider-Man use a cellphone when he's in the middle of a high-speed chase? Why does he always bust out in some kind of slow-motion Matrix moves where he dodges bullets, flying debris, and can apparently sense electricity before it makes contact with anything? How can he take so many high-voltage blasts without being fried (and don't tell me it's the rubber suit, all that stuff would have melted)? Why...ah, forget it. I never had to ask these questions with the first movie, because even with its questionable science and physics, it looked creditable. And the original trilogy's scenes worked on its own merits. All the action in this sequel comes off as messy and ridiculous.

Ultimately, there are only a few major action scenes, in the beginning, a bit in the middle, and the very end. In between these scenes, the movie slows down a lot, to focus on the continuing struggles of Peter Parker's life and that of his friends and family. The first movie had plenty of dramatic ground to cover, and it did so without lulling too much. This time around, very little of it seems to go anywhere; the movie tries to introduce complications to Peter's relationships with Gwen, with Aunt May, and with Harry Osborne. And he also manages to tick off Max Dillon, who inevitably becomes the main villain, Electro. While there is dramatic tension to be had, the story stalls substantially at times, while villains seem to pop up sporadically out of a rather flimsy series of events. Then the ending happens, which does some pretty gutsy things to the characters, and sets the stage for bold new directions in the inevitable third film. I don't feel that this movie handles all its parts that sublimely; the drama and action don't seem to marry well, especially since Spider-Man may be sad in one scene, but will gleefully jump into action the next. However, it does cover some interesting ground with the characters.

The film has okay photography. Editing seemed a bit messy in some scenes, but it gets the job done. Acting is alright: I was rather fond of Andrew Garfield's, Emma Stone's, and Dane DeHaan's performances. Jamie Foxx is okay. I felt Paul Giamatti overdid it. Everybody else is pretty good. Writing is okay. This production has okay-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are quite over-the-top and video-game-like, for better or for worse. I was not a fan of the music: the score didn't seem to fit, and it had a tendency to bust out with some kind of dubstep every time Electro appeared, which disrupted the flow of things more than it helped. I was also not a fan of the songs the film used (especially that "I will do it for you" song ).

While the film has its share of amusing comedy, rip-roaring action, and storytelling highlights, a lot of it came off as rather shallow, brainless, and uneven. I suppose these were all complaints many people had for the first movie, but it really only bothered me in this sequel. It's not a terrible movie, but it currently ranks as my least-favorite Spider-Man movie (yes, I even like Spider-Man 3 more than this).

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

Recommendation: Rental for fans.

[SilentDawn]

My review of Spirit of the Beehive:

An expertly layered tale of emotional maturation and family termoil; The Spirit of the Beehive is also a creepy and understated ghost story. Yet it isn't a ghost story in a traditional sense; the film mostly focuses on the human ghosts in our lives: Secrets, our troubled past, long-kept family heirlooms, and the brushed-aside comfort of the truth.

Brilliantly composed by cinematographer Luis Cuadrado, his work here is just astounding. The bright yellow hues with the moist and soft browns evident in his color palette enriches the constant symbolism and metaphor on display. Truly, even if this is a cliche at this point, every frame could be hung on a wall as a painting.

The direction here by Victor Erice is of a subtle and translucent quality; with the majority of the shots being static, watching over our main characters. It adds a little flow to the experience, and it's also obvious that every frame matters. Every shot tells something that builds to this greater whole of a film. Honestly, I'm not experienced enough to dissect this work, but it's fun trying anyway.

The performances of the two little girls is beyond incredible. In particular the character of Ana, played by Ana Torrent, is some of the finest ever captured by an actor of her age. Her facial expressions, her way of looking at the world, and her discovery of new paths is so well done and wondrous to behold.

Overall, The Spirit of the Beehive is one of the finest Spanish films ever made, and one of the finest films to come out of the 1970s decade. It's a must watch.

4.5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Intolerance (1916)

Almost a century ago, D.W. Griffith produced this mammoth film as his follow-up to Birth of a Nation, partly to try and be bigger and better, and also to counteract the racial criticisms his previous film garnered. Intolerance is a massive production that spans thousands of years of human history. For the first time in cinema history, massive sets, massive amounts of extras, huge amounts of props and costumes were dispensed to craft a lavish and visual experience. To this day, many folks acknowledge this film as an important landmark of movie-making history.

Regardless, it is one long-winded film that runs for three hours, telling four different stories in four different eras. The most interesting and visually impressive story involves the fall of ancient Babylon; it's a brutal tale that boasts some surprisingly violent scenes of war, with the backdrop of massive and exotic setpieces. The film also flips around with the classic tale of Jesus and His crucifixion, and once again it looks fabulous. Scenes in 16th century France show the story of St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Then there's the modern day scenes (1916 that is) showing the struggle of the working class against the adversities of strike, strife, crime, and punishment. All these stories are united with the recurring image of a baby in a cradle, insinuating that the central theme of "intolerance" is a universal trait that carries on with each new generation, from the day we're born to the day we die.

All that being said, the film never really captivated me. Not even with the lavish visuals, the sumptuous set designs, and the expansive story; as grand of an effort as this film was, I found it to be dry and stiff. None of the stories had any strong characters to follow, and without a pathological attachment, I found myself disconnected to the events that unfolded. The matter is made worse by the fact that all conflict seems historical in nature - most of them revolve around religious differences that set two sides at each others throats. Personal conflict occurs in the modern story, but is still not all that interesting. Thus, I found myself not really caring for what was going on, and the film overall came off as a bore.

I am sorry to say such a thing, because the film clearly shows its quality and passion through its production. It boasts very solid, if not groundbreaking and impressive, photography and editing. Acting is generally good, even by silent-era standards. Title cards tend to be long-winded, and have a tendency to explain a lot of what's going on in a herky-jerky manner. This production spared no expense on the sets, props, and costumes. On DVD, this film is set to the organ score of Gaylord Carter...and I think it sucks.

Intolerance is an important landmark film that all serious film fans should attempt to see. It doesn't do much for me personally, I'm afraid, but it is best seen for its ambition, scope, scale, and overall quality and craftsmanship.

3/5 (Entertainment: Awful | Story: Average | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: See it at least once in your life.