The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[,deeii]

Watched Death Proof recently, not as good as his (Quentin Tarantino) other movies but I still enjoyed it.

7/10

[oppopioneer]

'Body of Lies' with Russell Crowe and Leo DiCaprio, directed by Ridley Scott.

Just watched it on Comcast HD HBO in 1080i.

Picture Quality = Excellent, will be even better on bluray.

Sound Quality = Excellent

I thought this was a cool film and at times very accurate and realistic especially filmed on the streets in crowded Muslim neighborhoods and out in the desert and rough terrain. It is realistic in many aspects dealing with Islamic terrorism and how the west tries to counter it with technology and human intel on the ground. Both Russell and Leo I thought were very convincing and at times I didn't look at them as Russell and Leo but the characters they played, especially Russell who was right in character. I give the movie an A for effort.

The bad: Some parts are too much like a Hollywood movie instead of sticking to accuracy and realism. Parts of the film we get the unoriginal cliches that we seen 1000 times before.

If you're into the U.S. CIA counter terrorism with some elements of Blackhawk Down with the current war on terror then you'll like this film. I give the movie 3 stars and I highly recommend it!

[Al_The_Strange]

Rented "Hardware" via LoveFilm. Online screenshots intruiged me, and I do think the film has excellent visuals. But, it seemed to drag a bit; there is some action, gore, and sci-fi stuff, but there's no real sense of conflict or danger until the last hour or so. Characters and story are somewhat interesting, and I'm sure it has some kind of hidden theme, but I can't articulate what it could possibly be.

Meh...

3/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5, i/e: 1/5)

[Lacit170]

The Descent 2 - It was like watching the first movie but with a few new people trying to rescue the originals... a little more gory and bloody...overall, i wouldnt waste your time watching it...

2/5

[oppopioneer]

'The Assassination of Richard Nixon' with Sean Penn and Don Cheadle.

Filmed in similar style and fashion as Penn's other film "Milk" with lots of dialogue, hand held portable digital camera feel, like the camera man is holding his little SLR following the actors around. It's a slow film and kind of depressing but great acting.

I recommend it for people who like the 'Milk' and 'Zodiac' style films sort of like Sundance Film movies.

[master_8ball]

Striking Distance

Never heard of it before reading a few comments here about it, was on tv last night so I watched it... in HD... loving this free MovieTime HD channel.

Was a pretty good cop thriller, Bruce Willis was good in it and was surprised to see Sarah Jessica Parker as the movie was from the early 90's and I didn't think she did much acting until later. They did a pretty good job at making me think the killer was someone else

[Show spoiler](the whole time I thought it was the brother who disappeared to California)

so the ending was a good twist and it wasn't spoiled. Doubt I will grab it on blu when it comes out but it was worth checking out.

3/5

[CZAR]

Survival of the Dead - I did not like this film. I am tired of the zombies with personalities or plots where they try to make zombies do everyday things and try to train them like they are animals. The atmosphere of this film, the acting etc....I didnt dig at all. Also I am not into the slow walking zombies who can just be played with. How is that scary? This was a bad idea and I just didnt get it. Diary of the Dead is much better than this film. This just didnt work for me at all. Overall rating 2/5 Got Em!!

[Romulus]

Watched Tell No One again last week. Still a 9.5/10 in my book, definitely one of the finest foreign films of the last decade.

[Q?]

Funny People

This is not a typical Adam Sandler movie, which was a welcomed thing. The movie flows pretty decent, but it gets a bit too much during the last 2/3 of the movie. A great soundtrack throughout too. This movie is not a straight up comedy, it deals with pretty depressing things, but nicely and don't expect many hilarious moments during the movie, I think many people had wrong expectations to it. Me and my gf both loved it, because the characters are so true and in no way caricatured like most Adam's movies are. Give it a rent, but bear in mind it's 2 hours and 15 minutes long, it could certainly flow better if 10 minutes were cut.

8/10from me but 8.5/10 from my gf.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Survival of the Dead - I did not like this film. I am tired of the zombies with personalities or plots where they try to make zombies do everyday things and try to train them like they are animals. The atmosphere of this film, the acting etc....I didnt dig at all. Also I am not into the slow walking zombies who can just be played with. How is that scary? This was a bad idea and I just didnt get it. Diary of the Dead is much better than this film. This just didnt work for me at all. Overall rating 2/5 Got Em!!

i know this is a film in a long line of "______ of the dead" movies, but did Romero direct this himself or did he just 'present' this (much like Tarantino did with Hostel and other films he liked)? because i can't fathom him selecting either option.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i know this is a film in a long line of "______ of the dead" movies, but did Romero direct this himself or did he just 'present' this (much like Tarantino did with Hostel and other films he liked)? because i can't fathom him selecting either option.

Yes its a George Romero film and he did direct it. What a shame huh? Got Em!!

[iam1bearcat]

A Clockwork Orange

Almost a complete waste of 133 minutes of my life. You would be hard pressed to find a more sludging, "refuses to end" nightmare of a film than this one. And if i have to hear "right. right", "sir", "missis" or "droogies" again, i may just jump out of a 3 story window, land on my back... and somehow break my legs, ankles, neck, jaw and arms just like our friend Alex here did in A Clockwork Orange.

I will admit it's like nothing else before or after it, but that's not always necessarily a good thing. The first hour i actually enjoyed tremendously (aside from the odd opening few scenes), but after that, the last 73 minutes are a slow and painful death.

Much like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, he never knows when to end a scene, when to make a transition or when to end the damn film! the first 20 minutes are a hodgepodge of chaotic scenes smushed together with no rhyme or reason, and the muddled, ridiculous ending came across as just another, "wtf" moment. and sometimes (like with Orange) not all "wtf" moments or unintelligent endings are classic or 'smart' to do.

very little i believe was 'smart' in this film. i haven't read the book, and certainly won't after watching this. i didn't have a problem with the blatant violence (or "ultra-violence" as Alex refers to it here), i had a problem with the barbaric dialogue (that i'm sure comes from the book, in which most words aren't actual words and i have no idea what the "narrator" is referring to), the excruciatingly lengthy scenes, the ungodly bad acting by almost everyone but Malcolm McDowell, the frenzied order of scenes (although i do admire Kubrick's way of filming a scene and his quirky angles), and the absurd story that won't be understood (or found) by about 95% of the audience who watches this - if they can even finish the damn thing.

some films i enjoy after repeated viewings, and understand better after thinking about it for awhile, but with A Clockwork Orange, i will be hard pressed to watch this again. and i don't think i'll enjoy it or respect it more as time goes on.

Most films succeed when they have the audience connect with the main character in the film. Orange fails here because you can't connect with Alex. he's an angry, odd, vicious, brutal human being who seems to hate everything and gets joy out of raping and beating people and causing havoc in the city. Even when he's "better", he isn't different, it's

[Show spoiler]the procedures he goes through that changes him, but we instantly see him angry when he goes back home and meets Joe who now lives in his room

, which shows us he is the same. no connection there. and for a film as wildly absurd as this is, having a character to connect with is necessary.

2/5

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

A Clockwork Orange
Most films succeed when they have the audience connect with the main character in the film. Orange fails here because you can't connect with Alex. he's an angry, odd, vicious, brutal human being who seems to hate everything and gets joy out of raping and beating people and causing havoc in the city.

you can't connect with pre-institution Alex, but you sympathize with post-institution Alex. This is the genius of Kubrick: most people don't even realize in the second half that they're sympathizing with Alex!

Even when he's "better", he isn't different, it's

[Show spoiler]the procedures he goes through that changes him, but we instantly see him angry when he goes back home and meets Joe who now lives in his room

, which shows us he is the same. no connection there. and for a film as wildly absurd as this is, having a character to connect with is necessary.

that is the point of the film:

[Show spoiler]that the therapy did NOT work. that you can't just "be made good," as Alex said in the Jail Library. That "goodness must come from within," as the priest said in the Jail Library. The therapy wasn't real because it was external, not internal, and hence was doomed to fail, and was merely used for political purposes. This just tells me that someone can't seek any kind of change from outside themself, if they don't initiate it from within. I can't quit smoking by just going to the doc's office and say "make me stop smoking," or lose weight by showing up at a weight watchers office and say "i want to be made thin...make me thin"

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

you can't connect with pre-institution Alex, but you sympathize with post-institution Alex. This is the genius of Kubrick: most people don't even realize in the second half that they're sympathizing with Alex!



that is the point of the film:

[Show spoiler]that the therapy did NOT work. that you can't just "be made good," as Alex said in the Jail Library. That "goodness must come from within," as the priest said in the Jail Library. The therapy wasn't real because it was external, not internal, and hence was doomed to fail, and was merely used for political purposes. This just tells me that someone can't seek any kind of change from outside themself, if they don't initiate it from within. I can't quit smoking by just going to the doc's office and say "make me stop smoking," or lose weight by showing up at a weight watchers office and say "i want to be made thin...make me thin"

agree with the first part that we are to feel bad for him once he gets out, but i mean, he did it to himself. are we really to just welcome home and accept into socety someone who was a murderer just because of some odd therapy sessions? no. and that's why i still didn't feel bad for him or sympathize with him. but that might just be me.

second part: exactly! to me it felt like a complete waste of time because i had no thoughts that he would change.

[Show spoiler]i imagined from the get go once they brought up the "fixing from within" and how most films generally mock and destroy 'government ideas' that the sessions wouldn't work.

i think i still would've been fine with all that if Kubrick didn't stretch the film out and make it sooooooo slow and wildly absurd for seemingly no reason (but i'm sure this is based on what the book had in it). a lot of the film to me felt like filler.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

agree with the first part that we are to feel bad for him once he gets out, but i mean, he did it to himself. are we really to just welcome home and accept into socety someone who was a murderer just because of some odd therapy sessions? no. and that's why i still didn't feel bad for him or sympathize with him. but that might just be me.

first off, this is one of the most polarizing films ever (people either give it 0 stars or 5 stars), so your review is completely normal and we're just in 2 different camps. Hats off to you for the not getting "dooped" on the

[Show spoiler] post-institutional Alex sympathy factor

. Kubrick sure fooled me

second part: exactly! to me it felt like a complete waste of time because i had no thoughts that he would change.

[Show spoiler]i imagined from the get go once they brought up the "fixing from within" and how most films generally mock and destroy 'government ideas' that the sessions wouldn't work.

i think i still would've been fine with all that if Kubrick didn't stretch the film out and make it sooooooo slow and wildly absurd for seemingly no reason (but i'm sure this is based on what the book had in it). a lot of the film to me felt like filler.

That's hilarious:

[Show spoiler] you knew he wouldn't change, so felt the whole film was a waste of time. I had no idea what would happen, and saw the film as a great example of the "fix from within, not from without" rule, so loved it. I didn't see any of it as slow and boring, but 2001 is my favorite film, so we probably just differ on what is slow/boring. I thought Watchmen was boring we're all different tastes and that's good

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

first off, this is one of the most polarizing films ever (people either give it 0 stars or 5 stars), so your review is completely normal and we're just in 2 different camps. Hats off to you for the not getting "dooped" on the

[Show spoiler] post-institutional Alex sympathy factor

. Kubrick sure fooled me



That's hilarious:

[Show spoiler] you knew he wouldn't change, so felt the whole film was a waste of time. I had no idea what would happen, and saw the film as a great example of the "fix from within, not from without" rule, so loved it. I didn't see any of it as slow and boring, but 2001 is my favorite film, so we probably just differ on what is slow/boring. I thought Watchmen was boring we're all different tastes and that's good

i've always heard it was very "love it or hate it", so going in i blocked that out because there can always be a middle ground. and like i said, i loved the first hour.

you know, it's funny, the first time i watched 2001, about 2 years ago, i finished it and had absolutely no idea what i just saw. my initial reaction was, "this was like, 3 different films in one... and i don't know if that's good or not" and originally gave it a 2/5 (sound familiar right?), but after watching it again about a year later i loved it a little bit more and (kind of) understood it more. i think now i give it a 4/5 or a 4.5/5. so who knows, maybe that will happen again, but i do doubt it.

i think the reason i didn't like the second half of the film as much as the first was because

[Show spoiler]the first half was faster paced, bizarre, and exciting. i had no idea what to expect. the second half slowed things down and became much more 'talky' and slower paced.

but glad we can have a reasonable discussion about the film. too many people blow up at others for not agree with their point of view. i respect your views and can understand why you love the film (based off what you said about not expecting what happened), and glad you can understand why i do not.

[Bluyoda]

Watched "The General" (Buster Keaton) on Blu-ray last night, and really liked it.
It's amazing what they did in those days.

It's quite grand in scope actually, and very funny and exciting.

The transfer is nicely detailed, but full of print damage, which fortunately rarely becomes distracting, and shouldn't keep anyone from getting this wonderful film.

PQ: 3.5/5 (If there weren't so many speckles ...I'd give it 4.5, because contrast, black levels and detail are very good.)

AQ: 3.5/5 (I listened to the DTS-HD MA track with the latest score and it sounded fine, but nothing extraordinary. It fits the film.)

Movie: 4/5

I have watched half of Doctor Zhivago on BD already, and so far it looks/sounds and plays out very promising!

[Foggy]

In the middle of watching Scarface, it's really good but slow.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Watched Tell No One again last week. Still a 9.5/10 in my book, definitely one of the finest foreign films of the last decade.

You have to read Coben's books. If you think Tell No One is a good story, check out The Woods, Caught, and Hold Tight. WOW is all I can say.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

A Clockwork Orange

Almost a complete waste of 133 minutes of my life. You would be hard pressed to find a more sludging, "refuses to end" nightmare of a film than this one. And if i have to hear "right. right", "sir", "missis" or "droogies" again, i may just jump out of a 3 story window, land on my back... and somehow break my legs, ankles, neck, jaw and arms just like our friend Alex here did in A Clockwork Orange.

I will admit it's like nothing else before or after it, but that's not always necessarily a good thing. The first hour i actually enjoyed tremendously (aside from the odd opening few scenes), but after that, the last 73 minutes are a slow and painful death.

Much like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, he never knows when to end a scene, when to make a transition or when to end the damn film! the first 20 minutes are a hodgepodge of chaotic scenes smushed together with no rhyme or reason, and the muddled, ridiculous ending came across as just another, "wtf" moment. and sometimes (like with Orange) not all "wtf" moments or unintelligent endings are classic or 'smart' to do.

very little i believe was 'smart' in this film. i haven't read the book, and certainly won't after watching this. i didn't have a problem with the blatant violence (or "ultra-violence" as Alex refers to it here), i had a problem with the barbaric dialogue (that i'm sure comes from the book, in which most words aren't actual words and i have no idea what the "narrator" is referring to), the excruciatingly lengthy scenes, the ungodly bad acting by almost everyone but Malcolm McDowell, the frenzied order of scenes (although i do admire Kubrick's way of filming a scene and his quirky angles), and the absurd story that won't be understood (or found) by about 95% of the audience who watches this - if they can even finish the damn thing.

some films i enjoy after repeated viewings, and understand better after thinking about it for awhile, but with A Clockwork Orange, i will be hard pressed to watch this again. and i don't think i'll enjoy it or respect it more as time goes on.

Most films succeed when they have the audience connect with the main character in the film. Orange fails here because you can't connect with Alex. he's an angry, odd, vicious, brutal human being who seems to hate everything and gets joy out of raping and beating people and causing havoc in the city. Even when he's "better", he isn't different, it's

[Show spoiler]the procedures he goes through that changes him, but we instantly see him angry when he goes back home and meets Joe who now lives in his room

, which shows us he is the same. no connection there. and for a film as wildly absurd as this is, having a character to connect with is necessary.

2/5

My least favorite popular and acclaimed film of all-time, edging out Fight Club. Utter trash with terrible themes imo.

Surfdude has it right--extremely polarizing. I just happen to be in the negative