The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Die Hard 2: Die Harder

(first viewing)

not as bad as i've heard it is / was.

is it good? kinda. entertaining? yes. as good as the first? not even close. the directing, writing, characters, villains, and pacing is almost completely horrible compared to the first film (which is an action classic). but, looking at Die Hard 2 not as a sequel, but as a separate movie (hard to do with a 2 in the title i know but work with me here ) the film is better than i've heard.

the story itself is solid and i thought it was incredibly original. few films take place with terrorists and airports (and after 9/11 we probably never will see anything close to this again) and they really built up the villains as very smart people. a problem though: too smart. how could a group of people possibly "hijack"

[Show spoiler]an entire airport and every plane in the sky?? that seems wholly illogical and almost impossible. and they have ALL the equipment necessary to see what planes are doing? where the **** would you get this stuff?!

. and for those who say, "this is an over the top action movie. it doesn't have to be real". well, i don't agree. a few things, i can understand. it IS an action movie. but John McClane is built up as such a real guy, a normal hard working, smart, tough cop that to have barbarically impossible or numerous scenes just don't work.

a few things that made me and made me almost HATE the film because of sheer stupidity or other nonsense:

[Show spoiler]the grenades in the plane cabin. how f****** long does it take for grenades to go off?! six minutes?! holy crispies man! come on.

i shook my head in shame here. and then there is the

[Show spoiler]door that is placed DIRECTLY OVER THE WING OF THE PLANE. why? is this real? i've never personally seen it. not that i look at planes closely, but i'm almost positive that this would never be built like this and made me laugh for about 10 minutes at how bad it was.

. and last but not least (but i'm sure there is more) is the complete and total "WTF moment" with

[Show spoiler]the SWAT team getting annihilated near the beacon. really? they don't kill A SINGLE TERRORIST? MClane kills them all with a freakin' pistol?!

all these illogical screw ups made me shake in anger for a few seconds.

glad to see McClane back, but sad to see such a lackluster final product. some of the parts of the film are good and there are a few clever "aha!" moments, but once it finished i thought, "man, Die Hard really is a classic" and Die Hard 2 shows how difficult it is to make a classic action movie.

and the ending itself showed how dumb the writers were.

[Show spoiler]McClane blows up the terrorist plane as they fly away... and then there is a line of fire that the other planes land on... no one thought of this when the power went out? and none of the 6 million planes landing INSTANTLY, JUST A FEW HUNDRED FEET BEHIND EACH OTHER hit each other? where does each plane go? after awhile the first plane just stopped... so where will they all go next?

again, maybe not a film to be taken so seriously, but when you have such a real, tough main character, why not supply him with realistic logic? it is possible. just not in Die Hard 2.

2/5

I think this review is just about right, the thing that I don't like about Die Hard 2 is the fact they lose the lone man against everyone feel. There is only one guy who's helping John Mclain in the whole movie. In Die Hard 2, it's just some guy who's like "John Mclain, stop going off and doing stuff" that character is so terribly written.

[LordoftheRings]

Film: 3.75/5
Picture: 3/5
Sound: 2.5/5
Extras: 1/5
Overall: 3.75/5

* Last comment: First Tarantino Film Classic. ...A bit bloody, ...and talky too.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Film: 3.75/5
Picture: 3/5
Sound: 2.5/5
Extras: 1/5
Overall: 3.75/5

* Last comment: First Tarantino Film Classic. ...A bit bloody, ...and talky too.

You serious

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Film: 3.75/5
Picture: 3/5
Sound: 2.5/5
Extras: 1/5
Overall: 3.75/5

* Last comment: First Tarantino Film Classic. ...A bit bloody, ...and talky too.

no way! not a QT film! never!

[Show spoiler]

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Foggy

You serious

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

no way! not a QT film! never!

[Show spoiler]

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I agree with you 100% (on

[Show spoiler] him being dead being probably a more solid, thematically. As I said in the other post, there is 2 trees, so he may be in the Right one!

), I was just trying to appease Squid's issues with the film on the alternative (alive) explanation!

I'm going to Netflix it again. I want to discuss certain moments (I will document the exact times) where I think the Cinematography was BAD. I know the guy is an award winning genius, but I want to discuss specific shots that to me, looked like actual errors.

[Al_The_Strange]

Now that I have the blind-buys out of the way, I can finally focus on the stack of movies I’ve set aside to re-review. I must have gathered about 20 titles that I blind-bought in the past, and was disappointed on the initial viewing. So I need to really look at these and see if I want to keep them.

First one in this lot is “Chrysalis,” a French tech-noir film bearing a semblance to “Minority Report,” “Total Recall,” and “Blade Runner.” The film is rather slowly-paced (if not completely uneven), and the plot requires much attention to fully get. Devoting all my attention now though, I can say with certainty that I like it; the story is still a little hard to get, but it is interesting. It is especially interesting to see how two seemingly-disjointed storylines converge, both in the story and thematically (theme-wise, the movie deals a lot with memories and human trauma). There are a couple of neat fight scenes (choreographed by the same guy who choreographed the Bourne movies; shakey-cam is applied, but not too much). But I found the rest of the movie most interesting; despite its pacing, the movie is wonderfully shot with lots of interesting imagery and a style that is both slick and drab. The production value is interesting; even though this is sci-fi, it utilizes a lot of modern sets, locations (throughout Paris), and props that further gives the film its own flavor. Acting is pretty good; writing seems okay. Music is really cool, and I’m wondering if there’s a soundtrack available to buy.

It requires some effort to sit through, but I like it for the most part. I think I’ll keep it.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

I see that there's a region-free French BD for this. I'm adding it to the ol' wishlist (and hoping it has English subs).

[AutomaticDriver]

Kill Bill Vol 2.

Film- 3.5/5
AQ - 4.5/5
PQ - 4.5/5
Extras - 1/5

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Ali - This is my 2nd ever viewing of this film. Its a very long film and at times it did drag. I still dont think Smith was casted right as Ali. Not a knock on Smith but he just doesnt fit the role in my eyes. I thought the film was mediocre before and even though I am a huge Smith fan now, I still feel the same way. Mario Van Pebbles wasnt a very good Malcolm X either. This film just didnt work out that well in my eyes and I think he should be redone if they can find a different director and someone who actually fits the role of Ali.

Film Rating - 2 1/2 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

Felt the same way. Just sounded like Will Smith. Tried to sound like Ali but didn't work.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next rental: “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.”

Woah, far out dude! This movie’s totally rad! It’s got like acting dudes in it and some bodacious babes! Excellent, dude!

Yep, it’s silly, juvenile, out-of-date, and completely campy. Not that any of this is bad; the film is highly entertaining, with plenty of amusing comic moments, some slick (if not archaic) SFX, and plenty of rock music and pop culture references. Given its mostly-adequate production value, it’s a fine way to kill 82 minutes.

I also gotta hand it to Keanu Reeves; this is probably the livliest role I've seen him in.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4/5)

Blu-Ray on this would be interesting.

Party on dudes!!!

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by BruisedEmu

Kill Bill Vol 2.

Film- 3.5/5
AQ - 4.5/5
PQ - 4.5/5
Extras - 1/5

Are u serious. Please dont quit your day job.

[lDlisturb3d]

Just finished Donnie Darko and i can say ive never in my life been so confused about a movie. I get the concept of time travel but im going to watch the director's cut, maybe that will give me a better understanding of the movie.

[jawsfan1975]

I watched Outlander last night.....better than I thought it would be. Good visual effects for an almost straight to dvd film.

Movie: 3.75/5
PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4/5

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Just finished Donnie Darko and i can say ive never in my life been so confused about a movie. I get the concept of time travel but im going to watch the director's cut, maybe that will give me a better understanding of the movie.

It won't help that much. The film isn't that hard to understand after repeated viewings, but it's practically impossible to understand with only one viewing. There's an excellent website that explictly explains the movie too.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Are u serious. Please dont quit your day job.

I agree with him. Kill Bill films, like Tarantino, are overrated.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Just finished Donnie Darko and i can say ive never in my life been so confused about a movie. I get the concept of time travel but im going to watch the director's cut, maybe that will give me a better understanding of the movie.

Go watch Triangle

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by BruisedEmu

Kill Bill Vol 2.

Film- 3.5/5
AQ - 4.5/5
PQ - 4.5/5
Extras - 1/5

I actually agree, Kill Bill Vol 2 just isn't as fun as 1.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Go watch Triangle

Don't melt the man's brain!

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Just finished Donnie Darko and i can say ive never in my life been so confused about a movie. I get the concept of time travel but im going to watch the director's cut, maybe that will give me a better understanding of the movie.

Why bother, "Donnie Darko" sucks anyway.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I agree with him. Kill Bill films, like Tarantino, are overrated.

Yep, they are somehow.

Originally Posted by Foggy

I actually agree, Kill Bill Vol 2 just isn't as fun as 1.

You're a real funny dude; I gave a 3.75 score for "Reservoir Dogs" on the Film itself, but here you agree for a 3.5 score for "Kill Bill Vol 2" also for the Film itself!

* But hey, see how opinions differ about films from one person to the next...

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

You're a real funny dude; I gave a 3.75 score for "Reservoir Dogs" on the Film itself, but here you agree for a 3.5 score for "Kill Bill Vol 2" also for the Film itself!

* But hey, see how opinions differ about films from one person to the next...

I love Reservoir Dogs, I got the special Edition Tin Can version of the Blu-Ray for it, it's one of those films where I hang on every single line of Dialogue, I just get infinite replay value from it, the characters are so well written. I think it's Reservoir Dogs that made me the Film Fanatic I am now.

But Kill Bill Vol 2 just does nothing for me, it seems like a drag to watch and just seems to been all throw onto a wall to see what sticks, Vol 1 is just more of a refine film in my eyes, it's simple in it's story and it's homage and rarely drags, 2 drags...a lot. I haven't got a problem with people who like Vol 2, I can see why they do. I'm just more into Vol 1.