The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[LordoftheRings]

* The Film: Based on a true story and directed by Paul Verhoeven, it is well constructed with a great cast of young actors and a lovely young leading actress. The film is entertaining and keep your interest in check.

* The Picture: It is simply gorgeous with accurate flesh tones and a great natural color palette overall. ...Just clean and detailed with good camera work, in particular at following actors in their movements. You can tell it's the work of a pro.

* The Sound: Easy to understand dialog, clear voices always, no overboard on special effects, just simple and relaxing.

* Overall: Recommended.

Movie: 4/5
Video: 4.5/5
Audio: 4/5
Overall: 4/5

~~~ Special Features: Commentary from the director and a making of, score: 3/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

How could I possibly disagree?? Easy. I agree with what you're saying in a real life standpoint, in that his actions obviously would not have been tolerated. But it's a MOVIE, which immediately puts up a red flag in regards to anything resembling reality!

But why? Why cant filmmakers make it realistic? Why go the lazy route? A film can be entertaining AND realistic.

It troubles me when filmmakers take a very important contemporary issue, and portray it in such a sloppy fashion.

IMO, asking an audience to suspend disbelief for a comic book film, fantasy films, Star Wars and Treks, Indiana jones, Die hards and the like is perfectly acceptable. But when they take serious non-fiction based subject matter and deliver it as the real deal, (and they very much did!) it ought to be free of ridiculous flaws. Not minor flaws, as I can easily turn a blind eye to a boo-boo here and there, but it should be free of huge glaring flaws that relate DIRECTLEY to the issue and subject matter of the story its attempting to tell.

Its just lazy filmmaking. Do some research and get it right. And for this film there is no excuse because its current. There are plenty of soldiers to interview.

Imagine the work of researching a film where the story took place 40-65 years ago. Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List, Platoon etc. And they got it right.

Asking an audience to suspend disbelief when they are marketing a "realistic" movie is just an excuse for thier poorly researched, poorly written product.

What if Judgement at Nuremberg was filled with conversations that would never happen, between people that would never have them, and the Judges taking kick-backs,and making friends with the Nazis, and the Nazis playing fair? That would kinda take you out of the movie, yes?



Resume the previously scheduled program.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i can't say anything about the AQ as i don't have a HT, but the PQ (so far) is pretty amazing. for a show made for Fox and that aired in 2002, i am pretty blown away by the PQ. it's not perfect, and a high number of scenes (i'd say maybe like 15-20% in the pilot episode) had a bit of blurriness to them where it seemed the camera wasn't focused right.

but aside from that, some scenes look amazing. bright colors, crisp dialogue, some fine details on the ship. so far no complaints for $28.

Great to hear. I def wouldn't expect it to look and sound as good as Serenity, its film counterpart, but as long as its adequate that's fine with me. Especially at that price.

Can you believe that the episodes were aired out of order by Fox? Can you imagine that happening to any other show???

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

But why? Why cant filmmakers make it realistic? Why go the lazy route? A film can be entertaining AND realistic.

It troubles me when filmmakers take a very important contemporary issue, and portray it in such a sloppy fashion.

IMO, asking an audience to suspend disbelief for a comic book film, fantasy films, Star Wars and Treks, Indiana jones, Die hards and the like is perfectly acceptable. But when they take serious non-fiction based subject matter and deliver it as the real deal, (and they very much did!) it ought to be free of ridiculous flaws. Not minor flaws, as I can easily turn a blind eye to a boo-boo here and there, but it should be free of huge glaring flaws that relate DIRECTLEY to the issue and subject matter of the story its attempting to tell.

Its just lazy filmmaking. Do some research and get it right. And for this film there is no excuse because its current. There are plenty of soldiers to interview.

Imagine the work of researching a film where the story took place 40-65 years ago. Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List, Platoon etc. And they got it right.

Asking an audience to suspend disbelief when they are marketing a "realistic" movie is just an excuse for thier poorly researched, poorly written product.

What if Judgement at Nuremberg was filled with conversations that would never happen, between people that would never have them, and the Judges taking kick-backs, and the Nazis playing fair? That would kinda take you out of the movie, yes?



Resume the previously scheduled program.

Your first two sentences I absolutely agree with. Had to throw one of my favorite films, Nuremberg, in there didn't ya? I'm not sure the analogy is particularly good, but it got my attention.

I do have to say this though. There are certain things I've grown accustomed to in film. In courtroom or lawyer movies I know I'm going to see blatant falsities. In action movies I know I'm going to see impossible stunts. In military movies I know I'm going to see unacceptable behavior. These are things that I've just come to accept with current movies, to varying degrees. I absolutely agree that a film can be (somewhat) accurate and entertaining at the same time, as we've seen in innumerable films. However, many films are also completely inaccurate and entertaining as well. The Hurt Locker falls in the middle for me. The conduct of James is obviously inaccurate, but his job and its perils IS accurate. That's why I say one outweighs the other.

Another example. After watching the excellent Red Cliff the other day, I watched the bonus feature with Woo being interviewed. He stated that he had to take a lot of dramatic license because "that's what a film is supposed to do--tell a story." I'm not saying he's right, but I do think you have to weigh the reality of current film and its propensity to take liberties in films.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Your first two sentences I absolutely agree with. Had to throw one of my favorite films, Nuremberg, in there didn't ya? I'm not sure the analogy is particularly good, but it got my attention.

I do have to say this though. There are certain things I've grown accustomed to in film. In courtroom or lawyer movies I know I'm going to see blatant falsities. In action movies I know I'm going to see impossible stunts. In military movies I know I'm going to see unacceptable behavior. These are things that I've just come to accept with current movies, to varying degrees. I absolutely agree that a film can be (somewhat) accurate and entertaining at the same time, as we've seen in innumerable films. However, many films are also completely inaccurate and entertaining as well. The Hurt Locker falls in the middle for me. The conduct of James is obviously inaccurate, but his job and its perils IS accurate. That's why I say one outweighs the other.

Another example. After watching the excellent Red Cliff the other day, I watched the bonus feature with Woo being interviewed. He stated that he had to take a lot of dramatic license because "that's what a film is supposed to do--tell a story." I'm not saying he's right, but I do think you have to weigh the reality of current film and its propensity to take liberties in films.

I knew I would get busted for that. I went for the jugular.

I understand, and agree with what you are saying about taking artistic license to tell a story. However, I would only do that for fantasy or escapism movies, or if it was necessary. Thats just me. If I were telling a serious story, I would want it to be as real as possible. I'd feel as if I were taking shortcuts otherwise.

I was going to use ROPE for my analogy....but....since you....

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I knew I would get busted for that. I went for the jugular.

I understand, and agree with what you are saying about taking artistic license to tell a story. However, I would only do that for fantasy or escapism movies, or if it was necessary. Thats just me. If I were telling a serious story, I would want it to be as real as possible. I'd feel as if I were taking shortcuts otherwise.

I was going to use ROPE for my analogy....but....since you....

Oh trust me, I agree with you. I'd rather go for realism too, if I were in charge. However, I've just become so accustomed to artistic license that unless a film is a documentary (and not even always then) I won't believe what I'm seeing in a realistic sense.

It feels weird to argue with you

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I knew I would get busted for that. I went for the jugular.

I understand, and agree with what you are saying about taking artistic license to tell a story. However, I would only do that for fantasy or escapism movies, or if it was necessary. Thats just me. If I were telling a serious story, I would want it to be as real as possible. I'd feel as if I were taking shortcuts otherwise.

I was going to use ROPE for my analogy....but....since you....

dude, just admit it: you're an admiral in the realism-task force

seriously, you say "i would want it to be as real as possible," but who determines whats real? I know this sounds cliche, but its a valid point. Unless your film is covering historic non-fictional events, you can't attain any objective information on what is real. In a film like Hurt Locker, sure I understand your argument that it wouldn't happen for the guy to not be disciplined, but aren't we confusing whether he would be disciplined from whether he should be disciplined? often times, i'll criticize a film as unrealistic, when all i've really done is mask my disagreement with the outcome. effectively, all i'm saying is that I wouldn't have chosen that outcome. That's just a subjective gripe, not an objective gripe. sure, i get that you're contending that no possible military commander would tolerate that conduct, but surely it could happen? the fact that it may happen or could happen is realistic, no? or has the definition of "real" now become what would "probably/likely" happen? is that the restriction you would impose on an artist? by that definition, i've seen a lot of unrealistic films (by the way, i'm asking this to get your take on these questions, not necessarily because i personally believe what they're asking)

no but seriously, you do seem to have a higher standard for realism than most, and I think that's great. I may let things slide by that I shouldn't. However, I think it cuts both ways: it may inhibit enjoyment of an otherwise great film. you know where I'm going with this Walkabout!!! No seriously off the top of my head, you had some well-thought gripes

[Show spoiler]lack of kids emotion when aborigine died

but others I thought were expecting too much realism (or put better: a different realistic outcome than the realistic outcome than was shown, as a factual scenario need not have one plausible outcome), such as

[Show spoiler] the kids not deciding to trace the tiretracks back, or the kids lack of emotion when the abuse-alcoholic-father-who-tried-to-murder-them died Sure, in certain plot scenarios, its black and white realism, but in many (especially where the viewer doesn't know all the facts), its all grey so I'm liberated from the confining chains of logic and rationalism.

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

Shutter Island on Blu-Ray

Movie:4.5
Video: 4.5
Audio: 5

great movie and like it even more the 2nd time around

[TitansFan4Life]

Donnie Darko

Movie - 4/5
Video - 2/5
Audio - 3/5
Overall - 3/5

The PQ was horrendous. I felt like I was watching a DVD. I honestly couldn't tell a difference.

[iam1bearcat]

Shutter Island

First Viewing: 2/5

"Sometimes trying to do too much doesn't work." This was my thought during most of Shutter Island as I watched Scorsese put together seemingly random scene after random scene with a great creepy atmosphere. For as magically disturbing the setting for the film is, it never felt connected, it never felt orderly, it never really felt like a Scorsese film to be honest. Now, I haven't seen all of his films, but this film fell flat for me in just about every category.

The film centers around US Marshal Edward "Teddy" Daniels and his new partner Chuck investigating a psychiatric hospital on an island named, what else, Shutter Island, due to a bizarre case involving a "prisoner" (aka: patient) who recently escaped without a trace. Throughout the film we get scenes that are back story / dreams / nightmares of Teddy's involving his wife and other people. The scenes are oddly contstucted and will certainly f*** with a lot of people's minds. Some may see it as Scorses being deliberately cryptic with his film and the simple story he ultimately ends up telling.

My major complaints with the film were...

- the structure of the film. it never felt right. scenes never seemed like they really were in any sort of order and could've been placed anywhere and the continuity would not have suffered because most of the time it felt like random puzzle pieces that we were not given nearly enough information to.

- the score. it felt completely out of place and at times even obnoxious. at times hilariously bad. horns, trumpets and other odd ball assortments in places where scenes were supposed to be taken seriously, but then the crushing score came and ruined the moment.

- the story / characters. i didn't feel connected to anyone in this film. Not even Leonardo DiCaprio's Teddy Daniels. probably because half the time i was thinking, "wtf is happening now?" and while we were supposed to believe that's what Daniels was thinking, i always felt he was somewhere else than where the audience was. very little connection with this character.

as far as the story, it wasn't very engaging. this also was effected by the pacing, but once it was done i realized that it was difficult for me to keep my focus on the film. i liked the previews and the premise, but once it started, it just started to sluuuuuuudge on and on.

and that's where my biggest complaint comes in from. the film, in typical Scorsese fashion, is long. clocking in at 130 minutes, a lot of scenes were over emphasized and slow. lots of dialogue that seemed to go nowhere and an ending that was just kind of like, "oh, so that's what's happening. huh..." left me with a "well, okay..." kind of feeling. nothing special, nothing memorable. a lot of flash, very little substance.

maybe with future viewings i will enjoy the film more, but for the time being it gets a 2/5 for me. and chances are it will be a film i will not watch again for quite awhile. it didn't grab me and suck me into the world we were trapped in (or 'on'), it just kind of lingered around, showed wild, wacky designed scenes and had no consistent flow, rhyme or reason. disappointed with the film. and the special effects? absolutely horrible! this is a 2010 film right? i don't know what the budget was, but for being a Scorsese film, i figured it would have a high budget, but not from some of the horrible effects in this film.

2/5

[tbizzle]

Love and Other Disasters - 3.5/5

Cute movie, overall I liked it though it got off to a slow to start. Everyone was good, especially Brittany! Btw, she is cute as hell in this one (when is she not?), and she's half naked the entire movie!

Monsters Inc. - 4.5/5

This movie was awesome, can't believe it's taken me so long to see it! It looked and sounded fantastic on blu. Loved the cast

[,deeii]

Alice in Wonderland.

The world looked fantastic on Blu-ray. Fun movie to watch.
Also liked Depp's character .

7/10

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Oh trust me, I agree with you. I'd rather go for realism too, if I were in charge. However, I've just become so accustomed to artistic license that unless a film is a documentary (and not even always then) I won't believe what I'm seeing in a realistic sense.

It feels weird to argue with you

Argueing is just a discussion with opposing views. I argue with a and not with a .

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

dude, just admit it: you're an admiral in the realism-task force

seriously, you say "i would want it to be as real as possible," but who determines whats real? I know this sounds cliche, but its a valid point. Unless your film is covering historic non-fictional events, you can't attain any objective information on what is real. In a film like Hurt Locker, sure I understand your argument that it wouldn't happen for the guy to not be disciplined, but aren't we confusing whether he would be disciplined from whether he should be disciplined? often times, i'll criticize a film as unrealistic, when all i've really done is mask my disagreement with the outcome. effectively, all i'm saying is that I wouldn't have chosen that outcome. That's just a subjective gripe, not an objective gripe. sure, i get that you're contending that no possible military commander would tolerate that conduct, but surely it could happen? the fact that it may happen or could happen is realistic, no? or has the definition of "real" now become what would "probably/likely" happen? is that the restriction you would impose on an artist? by that definition, i've seen a lot of unrealistic films (by the way, i'm asking this to get your take on these questions, not necessarily because i personally believe what they're asking)

no but seriously, you do seem to have a higher standard for realism than most, and I think that's great. I may let things slide by that I shouldn't. However, I think it cuts both ways: it may inhibit enjoyment of an otherwise great film. you know where I'm going with this Walkabout!!! No seriously off the top of my head, you had some well-thought gripes

[Show spoiler]lack of kids emotion when aborigine died

but others I thought were expecting too much realism (or put better: a different realistic outcome than the realistic outcome than was shown, as a factual scenario need not have one plausible outcome), such as

[Show spoiler] the kids not deciding to trace the tiretracks back, or the kids lack of emotion when the abuse-alcoholic-father-who-tried-to-murder-them died Sure, in certain plot scenarios, its black and white realism, but in many (especially where the viewer doesn't know all the facts), its all grey so I'm liberated from the confining chains of logic and rationalism.

Admiral? Pffft. I'm a four star General damnit!

Your comments about Walkabout are good. I thought some of those things were "odd", but certainly possible. The lack of emotion seemed weird, but could that happen? Absolutely. And it didnt ruin the movie for me. Also, Walkabout is an deliberately artistic film. Walkabout is as much about the FILM as it is about the story.

Real? Whats real? Who defines whats real? This will sound arrogant, but here goes...

Some of the events in The Hurt Locker "could physically happen", my gripe is that they never ever ever would, in the real world, period.

The scene where they

[Show spoiler]get drunk and have a bonding "punch party" would never happen. Lets say that you and I are coworkers and you hate my guts. Every single day I do something that infuriates you and makes your life suck. I am a complete jerk and make your job more difficult and dangerous. You dread coming to work because you know I will do something shitty to you. After a few months of this you literally think about killing me. BUT THEN, after one of the worst days, WE GO OUT FOR A FEW BEERS AND END UP BONDING.

That would never happen. It has nothing to do with military reality, its just simple real world life.

My beef about his behavior being tolerated stems more from his equals than his superiors. And no, ther is NO confusion between should have, and would have, and thats where the film failed. Let me be clear, It is 99% more likely that his peers would have solved "the behavior problem" rather than his superiors. People want to stay alive and they will do what is necessary to terminate the threat, even if its wearing the same uniform. Thats the real world. You intentionally put my life in danger, wrecklessly and repeatedly, you get toasted. Sad but true. And thats bred into you right from bootcamp. Notice I said bred, not taught. Example; Soldier X misbehaves. Entire Platoon is punished, go run 5 miles. Two days later Soldier X misbehaves again, Entire Platoon is punished, go run 5 miles. In very short order, the Platoon take matters into their own hands and fixes Soldier X's attitude.

And you already know that I have many issues that are not related to the military aspect of the film. Like the scene where he goes to get information about the boy. The entire construction of that scene is illogical. Could those events physically occur? Yes. Would they ever? Never in a million years. Its not because the outcome didnt please me, its because it just wouldnt happen like that, at all, ever. I actually prefer movies that fake me out and trip me up, so its not that I wasnt pleased with the outcome of particular scenes, I was taken out of the movie by events that just dont occur in the real world. Too many to list.

[HeelsHater]

Edge of Darkness 6/10

Unfortunately, the movie was advertised to look like Taken, but there wasn't much action. Still enjoyed it though.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Shutter Island

First Viewing: 2/5

- the score. it felt completely out of place and at times even obnoxious. at times hilariously bad. horns, trumpets and other odd ball assortments in places where scenes were supposed to be taken seriously, but then the crushing score came and ruined the moment.

]

I can certainly see why you wouldnt like it because it was obnoxious and over the top. However, in fairness to Scorsese, it was an intentional choice to pay homage the the detective style thrillers of the 1940s and 1950s. Some of those old flicks had really scores. The score during the opening scenes of Shutter Island was truly bombastically bad, and I sat there thinking, hmmmm, its awful, yet perfect. It took me a while to accept it and be comfortable with it, but I definitely noticed it, just like you did.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

I watched The Road last night.

It was much slower paced than I was expecting. I found it a very somber movie, but was somewhat up-lifted by the ending. I enjoyed this film very much. 4/5.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Triangle (netflix instant)


Film: 3 1/2 stars (out of 4)

Rotten Tomatoes: 81%


This is a much overdue review, and it def would've been better suited for when the film was fresh in my mind. However, I'll do my best to give my explanation of the film:

[Show spoiler]The film mirrors the myth of Sisyphus, which is mentioned in the film. Sisyphus is condemned to repeat the same task (rolling a boulder up a hill over and over) for all eternity. In this film, the task is basically killing the other ppl on the yacht for a few moments with her son, before its taken away from her and she has to do it all over again. Sisyphus was well-known for killing travelers and guests, which is exactly what Jess does in the film.

The cab driver at the end is also important. Obviously, he knew more than he was letting on. A lot of people think he's death for some reason, but that's a misunderstanding of mythology and of the character of Death. The driver is meant to be Hermes, the messenger god, who had to bring Sisyphus back to the underworld at one point. Hermes is known as a sort of psychopomp, in that many stories and myths have him being a guide of the deceased to the underworld. Someone driving a cab (i.e. traveling), is directly representative of this. Oh, and there's another little tidbit. Sisyphus was known as being deceitful. In this film, remember Jess telling him she'd be "right back" to pay him? Obviously she didn't come right back because she was gonna get on the yacht! Thus, deceit.

Now, the interpretation. There's evidence to suggest that Jess cracked under the pressure of being poor, working as a waitress, and having an autistic son. We see how she treats this son and how she snaps at him at the end. We then see yacht Jess rush in and kill bad mama Jess. Why? It can be inferred that Jess truly snapped and killed her son and then killed herself, which is why she's being punished with her Sisyphean task to get a few moments with him. To get those few moments, she has to kill all those on the yacht, including herself, and then when she gets home she has to kill bad mama Jess. This is important. Killing herself is a nod to her suicide in real life, which is why she has to kill herself the first time, and then killing bad mama Jess is a nod to killing, or peeling away, the person she was before.

Other evidence to show that she had killed her son and herself? The car crash. I know a lot of ppl seem to think this car crash is where everything started and that the crash killed her son and herself and that she then made a deal with the cab driver, Death. However, this theory doesn't hold water for a lot of reasons, both thematically and mythologically. What do I think of the crash? It all goes back to the bird hitting the window (the bird is also seen in the beginning). Birds can mean many things, including fate. Right after the bird hit the car's window, she got in a car crash and the son is killed and the body of mama Jess is found by the ppl on the scene, thinking she simply died in the crash due to trauma (which killing someone with a hammer would pass as). What does this scene mean? It means that you cannot escape your fate, even if you swear you'll change. Jess had killed her son and herself, and she cannot escape that fate. Someway, somehow, she and her son will die. I have no doubt that she and her son died in other ways on previous occasions. However, we see this one because driving is representative of trying to start over, trying to escape something. Which, we see, she cannot do.

Lastly, the last scene in the movie shows that Jess finally realizes that she cannot escape her fate and then she is condemned for all eternity. You can see this realization and acceptance on her face at the end. She now knows that she will have to repeat the same task over and over but that she'll get a few moments with her son (note: similar to the reprieve of the boulder at the bottom of the hill, before starting again). What I find interesting is that now that she knows what will happen, an ephiphany it seems, will she simply let the Jess that is on the ship kill her and her friends? Will she even remember by the time she gets to the ship, or will she simply have deja vu?

I think I can explain most of what's in the film, and there's def more symbolism that I won't get into. However, one thing I don't get is the crazy Jess on the yacht. The one that stabs Downey over and over and has cracked out looking eyes. That, to me, doesn't make sense.

A very intelligent film with, as one critic stated, a "surprisingly poignant payoff."

I agree with all of that. I do wonder something though. After the

[Show spoiler]car crash where her son dies and she accepts that she must repeat the cycle to revisit him, does she ever ponder, or believe that she can alter things? Meaning, go through the whole yacht/cruise ship/killing spree, then return home, then kill the "Bad" Jess, and then deviate from the pattern so her son doesnt die. Perhaps leave the boy with a sitter while she disposes the "Bad Jess" corpse.

Maybe she ponders that, but the nap on the Yacht erases her memory of the events that lie ahead???

YIKES!!! "Memories of events that lie ahead"

I bet thats it. The nap is the reset button. Because before that, she is aware of the "cycle", but afterwards she is not. At least not until she starts seeing the other Jessies. Thats her escape. If she ever figures it out, she just needs to stay awake.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I can certainly see why you wouldnt like it because it was obnoxious and over the top. However, in fairness to Scorsese, it was an intentional choice to pay homage the the detective style thrillers of the 1940s and 1950s. Some of those old flicks had really scores. The score during the opening scenes of Shutter Island was truly bombastically bad, and I sat there thinking, hmmmm, its awful, yet perfect. It took me a while to accept it and be comfortable with it, but I definitely noticed it, just like you did.

i was wondering about that, especially since the film took place in 1954, i thought, "maybe it's supposed to be this way...?" but i still wasn't a fan of it

[markbr]

Just finished watching War Of The Worlds, wow audio is 10/10 it shook my house. Picture was stunning even with the grain !!!