The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Anyone read Liebman's review of Seven today? Hilarious.

I just skimmed through it and fail to see the comedy.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I just skimmed through it and fail to see the comedy.

Me as well. What was hilarious? Him being a fan of the movie?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

Incredible to think it's almost 40 years old now. I remember settling down with my folks to watch this when I was a young'un.

Where did the time go?

I dont know, but lately I am TOO aware that it is going to run out.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I just skimmed through it and fail to see the comedy.

Timeless Classic Masterpiece?

I enjoyed it a lot, for what it was, a cop-o-shock-o-thriller with an ending you can see coming from 14 light years away. Timeless Classic Masterpiece though?

[Batman1980]

Anchor-Man 5/5
PQ - 4/5
AQ - 3.5/5
Far better than the DVD, love the huge slipbox.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Timeless Classic Masterpiece?

I enjoyed it a lot, for what it was, a cop-o-shock-o-thriller with an ending you can see coming from 14 light years away. Timeless Classic Masterpiece though?

its gotta be a joke (the review). its too over the top.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I just skimmed through it and fail to see the comedy.

Not only does he spoil the film for people who haven't seen it, the lavish praise he puts on Fincher and the film is what's funny. We all know I'm not a fan of Fincher or of the film, but I have no problem with a reviewer giving a film a good rating if he or she presents solid reasons for doing so, which Liebman does. What's funny is that as a professional reviewer, the golden rule is not to speak in absolutes and to not guarantee rewards success or bemoan a lack thereof (side note: anyone else shocked that 1/3 of those that have reviewed Black Swan so far have essentially guaranteed Portman an Oscar win? I've almost never seen this happen with so many critics so early before...).

Liebman calls the film an "all-time classic," which it quite simply is not by any objective standard. While I personally don't think it's on the upper echelon of even its own genre, that claim at least has merit based on its critical success. All-time classic in a general film sense, however, crosses the line.

Liebman also calls the film "one of cinema's most brilliantly crafted pictures." Once again, this crosses the line from an objective standard. Even the critics who rated the film very highly, which is most of them, didn't even come close to approaching this level of praise. No serious critic would call a film such as this one of cinema's best and smartest crafted movies. Is it well-crafted and written? Yes--even I agree that it is. But there are numerous films in the same genre that are every bit as well-crafted and written, which I don't have to list here.

Liebman then states that the film has "cemented itself as an all-time classic of the cinematic medium." Aside from Liebman's constant use of unnecessary flowery writing, this level of praise for a professional reviewer is simply too much. Know where Seven is ranked on TheyShootPictures top 1000 films of all-time, which is undoubtedly the most comprehensive list of top films? It's ranked 914. Despite this, Liebman cites to the single most unimportant ranking system--imdb--to prove his point.

My point here isn't that Seven is not a good film, which I will even admit it is (although I obviously think it's very overrated). My point is that credibility as a reviewer is lost when you use absolutes and objectively too strong of praise in reviewing a film.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

its gotta be a joke (the review). its too over the top.

Martin did a great sarcastic review of some flopass movie (cant remember which) a few months ago that was hilarious. He buried it with ridiculous praise, but he scored the movie very low, indicating his true opinion.

I think he really loves Se7en.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Martin did a great sarcastic review of some flopass movie (cant remember which) a few months ago that was hilarious. He buried it with ridiculous praise, but he scored the movie very low, indicating his true opinion.

I think he really loves Se7en.

haha that's actually kind of funny. Wish I knew which film it was. I think Liebman is usually pretty good with his reviews, compared to some of the other reviewers. Obviously Dr. Svet is the finest they have.

I remember Ebert doing something similar before which was really funny.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I dont know how free wheeling you are with your blind buy habits, so I politely seggest a rental first. 3/5 from me.

I've actually got a good feeling about this one. Even if the intellectual value doesn't stack up well, I'll be happy with Christopher Nolan's filming style and the slick-looking action (those SFX look soooo sweet....). The suitcase edition is very tempting, since it would go well with my "Blade Runner" one.

But, I'm waiting to see if the US gets the suitcase version.

[CZAR]

I think is an excellent film and its in my top 100 of all time. Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

haha that's actually kind of funny. Wish I knew which film it was. I think Liebman is usually pretty good with his reviews, compared to some of the other reviewers. Obviously Dr. Svet is the finest they have.

I remember Ebert doing something similar before which was really funny.

Found it. It was for Stan Helsing and its worth a read.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Stan-...y/6481/#Review

[Al_The_Strange]

I see what ya'll mean about the review for "Se7en." Yeah, I thought it was good, and I know lots of people love it, but is it really that super-great?

"Se7en's influences in popular culture are readily visible."

..it is?! If I never saw it in the store, and got curious about it, I never would have heard of it!

Maybe he's appealing to the fans.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Found it. It was for Stan Helsing and its worth a read.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Stan-...y/6481/#Review

hahaha

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I've actually got a good feeling about this one. Even if the intellectual value doesn't stack up well, I'll be happy with Christopher Nolan's filming style and the slick-looking action (those SFX look soooo sweet....). The suitcase edition is very tempting, since it would go well with my "Blade Runner" one.

But, I'm waiting to see if the US gets the suitcase version.

Cool.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Found it. It was for Stan Helsing and its worth a read.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Stan-...y/6481/#Review

That was brilliant! How could I have missed the best movie in the world?!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Not only does he spoil the film for people who haven't seen it, the lavish praise he puts on Fincher and the film is what's funny. We all know I'm not a fan of Fincher or of the film, but I have no problem with a reviewer giving a film a good rating if he or she presents solid reasons for doing so, which Liebman does. What's funny is that as a professional reviewer, the golden rule is not to speak in absolutes and to not guarantee rewards success or bemoan a lack thereof (side note: anyone else shocked that 1/3 of those that have reviewed Black Swan so far have essentially guaranteed Portman an Oscar win? I've almost never seen this happen with so many critics so early before...).

Liebman calls the film an "all-time classic," which it quite simply is not by any objective standard. While I personally don't think it's on the upper echelon of even its own genre, that claim at least has merit based on its critical success. All-time classic in a general film sense, however, crosses the line.

Liebman also calls the film "one of cinema's most brilliantly crafted pictures." Once again, this crosses the line from an objective standard. Even the critics who rated the film very highly, which is most of them, didn't even come close to approaching this level of praise. No serious critic would call a film such as this one of cinema's best and smartest crafted movies. Is it well-crafted and written? Yes--even I agree that it is. But there are numerous films in the same genre that are every bit as well-crafted and written, which I don't have to list here.

Liebman then states that the film has "cemented itself as an all-time classic of the cinematic medium." Aside from Liebman's constant use of unnecessary flowery writing, this level of praise for a professional reviewer is simply too much. Know where Seven is ranked on TheyShootPictures top 1000 films of all-time, which is undoubtedly the most comprehensive list of top films? It's ranked 914. Despite this, Liebman cites to the single most unimportant ranking system--imdb--to prove his point.

My point here isn't that Seven is not a good film, which I will even admit it is (although I obviously think it's very overrated). My point is that credibility as a reviewer is lost when you use absolutes and objectively too strong of praise in reviewing a film.

I understand that it is a really over the top review, but he gave it a 5/5, so his love for the movie itself is genuine at least. I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I still don't really find the review hilarious even if he meant to go over the top. The already mentioned Stan Helsing review is what I would call hilarious.

As far as Seven goes, I thought it was fine, but it is one I never want to see again. Once was enough for me.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That was brilliant! How could I have missed the best movie in the world?!

Back when he wrote that I was linking it everywhere. It gets better with each paragraph.

Reanimated Hitchcock... LMAO

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Martin did a great sarcastic review of some flopass movie (cant remember which) a few months ago that was hilarious. He buried it with ridiculous praise, but he scored the movie very low, indicating his true opinion.

I think he really loves Se7en.

fair enough. I stand corrected. He did fool me though. Jhiggy also sent me on the hunt with "hilarious", then throw in the fact that its Fincher (who I know jhiggy isn't crazy about, nor am I) and I figured it was a spoof review = sproofview. too bad. that would have been fun

[Al_The_Strange]

“The Evil Dead.”

This is the second time I’ve seen this one. That first time around, having seen the infinitely entertaining and hilarious “Army of Darkness” first, came off as rather slow and gnarly. I wasn’t even sure if I liked it.

This time around, I enjoyed it a lot more. It is pretty darn wicked! The story’s simple, it does use some clichés, but it is rather short and entertaining. Acting is decent, the photography is very wild, and the gore/creature effects are awesome. Some parts are so over-the-top that it made me chuckle a little, but it’s not nearly as funny as the sequels. Production value is low, but in this case less is more. For the most part, it’s a freaky experience. I forgot how gnarly most of this movie is!

Liebman praised this one rather highly too.

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

I had pretty low expectations on this Blu-Ray, after reading that it was filmed in 16mm and has its limitations. And yet, the film looks mostly marvelous. Close inspection does reveal an abundance of grain, noise, and some kind of smudgeyness, but for the most part the film is surprisingly sharp and clear, with superb color and contrast. A few shots look soft. But it’s likely the best it’ll ever look. Sound quality is okay; the dialogue seemed a bit low, but music and sound effects sounded good.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4/5



“The Evil Dead II”

Once again, second time viewing.

Is it a sequel? Is it a remake? What is it?!!

Regardless of what it is, it is pretty darn entertaining. Perhaps even moreso than the first film (but not quite as much as “Army of Darkness”). The action, comedy, blood and guts, and everything have been ramped up to such an absurd degree that it’s now very silly and laugh-out-loud funny. The story’s a little better developed, characters are a little better (Ash is especially more bada$*), and the production value is a little higher.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

This Blu-Ray is okay. The picture looks good…from a distance. Up close, the film has some kind of static noise that seems to obscure details; the same kind that smudged up those first two “Mission Impossible” movies, I don’t know if that’s a digital thing or a source limitation or what, but it’s pretty darn disconcerting. The film has just some detail. Color and contrast are pretty good. Sound quality is okay.

PQ: 3/5, AQ: 3/5