The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thank you.

[Show spoiler]I will admit that I have a pet peeve. Intelligent people who wont get their sh!t together drive me nuts. It's maddening to me when people dont take a project seriously and it negatively affects those who work on the same project. Malick spent tons of other peoples money wastefully, some of it not even on the film, pissed off the producers and misled some of the actors. Three months before filming, Sony pulled the plug because new studio chairman John Calley did not think Malick could make his movie with the proposed $52 million budget.

For the record, I didnt come across any of this information until AFTER I had seen all of Malicks films. They all struck me the same way, so thats why I started to read up on him. As I have stated, his films appeared to be made on the fly to me. After researching his working "style" my suspicions made sense to me.

I never read Eberts review, so I thought I’d take a peak today. Ironically, he chose the same word that I did. Rhythm. What a coincidence. I'm sure you have read it, but I'll point out where he and I agree the most.

Ebert said that it felt confused and unfinished, but was "fascinating ... The battle scenes themselves are masterful, in creating a sense of the geography of a particular hill, the way it is defended by Japanese bunkers, the ways in which the American soldiers attempt to take it ... Actors like Sean Penn, John Cusack, Jim Caviezel and Ben Chaplin find the perfect tone for scenes of a few seconds or a minute, and then are dropped before a rhythm can be established"

Reportedly, the first assembled cut took seven months to edit and ran five hours. By the final cut, all footage of the performances by Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Sheen, Gary Oldman, Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas, Jason Patric, Viggo Mortensen and Mickey Rourke had been removed. Holy shit. IMO, that is a guy without a clear vision, and it shows (for me) in the film. Not to mention a ton of cash tossed out the window.

Pre-production went slowly, as Malick had a hard time making decisions. Weeks before filming began, Malick told Geisler and Roberdeau not to show up in Australia where the film was being made because George Stevens Jr. would be the on-location producer supporting line producer Grant Hill. Malick told them that they had upset the studio for refusing to give up above-the-title production credit to Stevens. He did not tell them, however, that in 1996 he had a clause inserted in his contract barring the producers from the set.Geisler and Roberdeau were mystified about this behavior; Geisler told Entertainment Weekly, "I didn't think he was capable of betrayal of this magnitude".

The editing also resulted in many of the well-known cast members being on screen for only a brief period: for example, John Travolta and George Clooney's appearances are little more than cameos, yet Clooney's name appears prominently in the marketing of the movie. The unfinished film was screened for the New York press on December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie", as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time. On April 15 2001, an interview with Adrien Brody revealed that he was still upset over the removal of his work. He expressed his opinions in an interview with the London newspaper The Independent.



Again, this strikes me as a guy that doesnt seem to have a grasp on the overall project.

I realize that I am ragging on Malicks business practices and methodology here, but I see a bleed over effect into his artistic product.

Anyway, rant over, and thanks for posting that part of your thesis.

I appreciate your response and the research you put into it. I obviously have no argument regarding what you posted--I'm very aware of all the quotes and reports you cited to. You do have to take into account, however, that those who gave those negative quotes did so because their role was reduced. This is very much sour grapes and it's happened before not only on Malick's films (happened on Days of Heaven too) but other films as well.

What you don't mention is that Malick shot over 10 hours worth of footage for the film and that initially it was 4-6 hours. The studio is the one that forced him, for obvious reasons, to reduce the film to a manageable 3 hours. Thus, he had to cut out scenes that involved major actors. This isn't misleading actors in anyway and there's no evidence that that was the case. A contract generally will not state the exact screentime an actor is supposed to have. When Malick was forced to cut his film in half, he had to reduce or omit certain things. What he did was choose the scenes that he thought best reflected the themes he intended to convey, which I obviously argue he did extremely well since I believe and have written that each scene and piece of dialogue fits with those overaching themes.

So, why don't we see more Travolta for instance? Because the scenes with his character did not convey the themes of the film as well as someone like Nolte's. It is also interesting to note that Brody's character was originally the lead but then was reduced significantly and Caviezel's became the lead. My one argument with your response is that you almost make it seem like Malick is the only director who comes up with the final product in the editing room. He's not. Many directors shoot an extraordinary amount of film and then piece it together in the editing room. Lord of the Rings is another example.

At any rate, thank you for the post.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Elite Squad just became super-urgent to watch in that case!!

I've been debating buying the City of God canadian blu forever, but I guess i'll wait. The transfer looks B-grade.

Same here. Waiting for the inevitable US release. Excellent film but difficult to watch.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

I'm recommending The Killer Inside Me, buy it now and watch it tonight, one of the best surprises for me of 2010 for sure.

2010 version with Casey Affleck? added it to my queue

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Elite Squad just became super-urgent to watch in that case!!

I've been debating buying the City of God canadian blu forever, but I guess i'll wait. The transfer looks B-grade.

it already should have been super-urgent!

[jhiggy23]

Btw, I picked up Red Desert, El Norte (thanks surf) and Paths of Glory at Barnes and Noble on Monday. As surf knows, I originally decided againsts Paths because I haven't seen it. However, due to both his and rkolinski's recommendation and being that they're both at the very top of my respect list on this site, I decided to take the chance on it. Not to mention it's Kubrick.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Btw, I picked up Red Desert, El Norte (thanks surf) and Paths of Glory at Barnes and Noble on Monday. As surf knows, I originally decided againsts Paths because I haven't seen it. However, due to both his and rkolinski's recommendation and being that they're both at the very top of my respect list on this site, I decided to take the chance on it. Not to mention it's Kubrick.

dude!!! review????

just trying to fulfill my "pushy b1tch" role that Squid labelled me with today!

Red Desert...man, I have picked that up and put it back about 10 times at B&N! AM I the only who has spent as long as 55 minutes to buy one effin movie at B&N!?!? THe dude workin there is like "Bro, do you want me to pick one for ya?"

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

True. It echoed our thoughts in the closing paragraph too

I think that movie merits more discussion.

In the screenshots we can see "clips" of dogfights. Are the fights shown in the film?

[lDlisturb3d]

A Squid and Bearcat. Daniel Day is KILLING "My Left Foot" (Ohh i just paused the movie for that :P)

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Hey bro you are 3 days late. I been corrected that remark HA!!!!!

.

Three days?

Two hours.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

In the screenshots we can see "clips" of dogfights. Are the fights shown in the film?

oh god i hope not i was planning on getting this soon so i hope there isn't. and there's two screenshots with dogs in them that worries me a lot. unless the movie just has a lot to do with dogs being around in scenes...?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by vega2K

I watched it a few nights ago and had, for the most part, the same reaction. I was very impressed with Jennifer Lawrence's performance, how old is she? she looks like she's about 16 or 17 in real life. It was an interesting movie but I also felt that I was not feeling the level of desperation that I was supposed to feel. One thing I had a bit of trouble with (and I guess it's a good thing) was understanding the mind-set or the action > reaction of these people. For example,

[Show spoiler]I could not understand why the sisters would need to beat the hell out of the Ree character simply because she would not stop looking for the Thump? character, which then was followed by a visit by Thump anyway???. Or why the one guy was willing to take guardianship of the teenage boy, but not the young girl?? Or why it was necessary to have Ree come along and actually get the proof of her father's death, yet it was absolutely necessary for Ree not to know where they went to get it???? Or why a father would put his family in that situation in the first place????

I guess if I understood the mind-set of these characters, It would mean I may be as ignorant and backwards as them!!?? At any rate, I would recommend a rental, but by no means a buy. As far as the flaw you point out,

[Show spoiler]The dry laundry didn't bother me as much as the fact that they had nothing to eat, yet were keeping the @$$hole father's expensive looking cowboy boots instead of selling them for food??!!

I think it was just a mafia mentality that was trying to

[Show spoiler]protect/distance Thump. I think he made his appearence because they were going to kill Ree, which would solve their "perceived" problem.

Your fancy cowboy boots comment is also the answer to your question about why a father would put his family in that situation to begin with. He was an A$$hole Meth cooker who only cared about himself. I dont think Ree would sell them while she thought her father was still alive for fear of punishment.

[CZAR]

The Next Karate Kid - This was my first viewing of this film. This was Hilary's 2nd film and she was a cutie back in the day. I have to say I was expecting this to be trash especially after watching The Karate Kid Part III. This was miles better than part III. Of course it didnt come close to the first two parts but I actually enjoyed the film. Miyagi was great as he usually is and I thought Hilary did a very good job. I got somewhat also engaged into the film regarding the relationship between Hilary & Morita and this film also had some uplifting and sad moments unlike part III. All in all not a bad film by any means. It is definitely the 3rd best film in the series.

Film Rating - 3 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Dude you missed the BEST PART!!!!!

[Show spoiler]They lay into him for being a murderer and tell him that they are going to take justice into their own hands but he cry's out with an amazing performance on how sick he is in the head.

that honestly was the best part of the film. I gave it a easy 5/5 GREAT MOVIE.

Nah man, as I said in my post, I saw his famous speech. The last thing that I saw was when someone walked in the door, and he looks up, realizes who it is, and then his eyes grow very wide. Then the film shut off abruptly, so I was just wondering what happened after that. That's the first time they've cut off the end of a film for me, damn you Netflix

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Nah man, as I said in my post, I saw his famous speech. The last thing that I saw was when someone walked in the door, and he looks up, realizes who it is, and then his eyes grow very wide. Then the film shut off abruptly, so I was just wondering what happened after that. That's the first time they've cut off the end of a film for me, damn you Netflix

i cant remember off the top of my head. Re stream it and find out.

[two40]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You had me until the final sentence.

Comparing it to Pixar? I shouldn't even have mentioned it. The animation style is very different and elicits different emotions. I find Pixar stuff, although full of wonderful detail, to be too clinical (perfect lines, shading, etc) where the animation in 5 Centimetres Per Second was warm and rough and full of imperfections that add to its beauty. It draws out different emotions and the use of unusual framing adds interest. It is worth checking out, even for non anime fans.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: “Antichrist.”

I went into this being rather skeptical. When I heard that it would be gruesome, disturbing, sick, etc, I feared as to how far it would go. When I saw the title and read about the director’s atheism, I feared how far he would push it. But rest assured, my fears were mostly unfounded. The movie does have some cringe-inducing violence, yes, but still not on the same level as something like a “Saw” movie. There is a lot of graphic sex, probably more so than most other films, but no sexual torture, as with “Salo” and “Caligula” (the combined graphicness of “Antichrist” could never reach the same level as either of those films anyway). Do be advised though that there are a couple of scenes involving disfiguration of certain body parts, which I found particularly gnarly, and a couple of bizarre animal scenes (didn’t find them all that violent necessarily; if anything, the unnaturalness of these scenes accentuated the film overall). And as for the themes…well, I’m still thinking about it. I’m not even sure why this film is called “Antichrist,” but there’s nothing that overtly criticizes established faiths, nothing that glorifies Satanism, and I didn’t really catch any atheist themes. Nihilism is the only thing I got out of this, but even then, I don’t know…

The film presents a surprising amount to think about, and on the first viewing I probably only scratched the surface mentally. Right now, I feel that it’s something similar to “Apocalypse Now!” (and by extension, the “Heart of Darkness” story), in which the characters succumb to their primal nature and devolve into uncivilized beasts. I think “Antichrist” does so as a journey through Hell as well; the imagery of the forest is often atmospheric and creepy, invoking imagery that reminded me a lot of Dante’s Inferno (whether the poem, the paintings, or the video game; they all had freakish imagery). A lot of individual scenes stand out as some of the creepiest and most invoking images I’ve seen in, well, any film. Right from the start, the film is loaded with images that are both beautiful and brutal; the cinematography alone makes the film worthwhile.

I can’t say that it’s the greatest story, or even the most interesting. It took a while for it to totally grab my interest, but once it did it was relentless. The pacing is a bit slow, especially with such limited dialogue and such a simplistic story. But it manages to maintain a lot of tension in the last act. My big complaint about the story is

[Show spoiler]the woman going nuts. I’m not even sure why she just went psycho like she did; I guess it was the grief and the latent hatred she had for the dude. Even then, wouldn’t a passionate argument been good enough? Why did she have to freakin’ drill a hole in his leg and impale a stone wheel through it?! WTF?!!! That’s the scene that really made me cringe. As unreasonable as this character seemed, I couldn’t help but to think of “Pinocchio 964,” another movie in which a chick goes psycho for some unknown reason (puking up a massive pile of yellow goo before yelling, screaming, and torturing the title android character. Yeah that was crazy. Thank goodness “Antichrist” wasn’t that unreasonable, but still… )

.

Overall, I found this film way more fascinating than I initially thought I would.

4/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 5/5, intellectual impact: 5/5) Score might improve with repeated viewings.

While the B&N sale is still ongoing, I might order a copy.

[two40]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Winters Bone

Synopsis from Netflix:

In this noir drama set deep in Ozark territory, resilient teenager Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) goes on the trail of her missing drug-dealing father when his absence jeopardizes the safety of their family. The deadbeat dad has put the family home up as bond and has a critical court date pending, and Ree is determined that he make it -- despite the objections of the insular Dolly clan.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this film, but it just didnt knock my socks off like I hoped it would.

Acting is quite good. Casting was perfect. Pacing was fine. Directing was competent, as was the camera work and editing. The location, sets and "Look" of the film are spot on. Even the season of the year (the cusp of Winter, not Winter proper) helped.

The story is good and I cared about the characters, but it didnt feel bleek enough. It didnt feel as dark, depressing and hopeless as I think it was intended to.

I have no specific complaints because I just cant put my finger on any flaws.

Film 3.5/5
PQ 4/5 darn good
AQ 4/5 clean dialog

Oh, actually, there was one HUGE flaw in the very first scene. It didnt affect my opinion of the film, its just an accidentally hilarious continuity error. I'll spoiler tag it just in case, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with the story, plot or outcome.

[Show spoiler]The film opens with Ree in the yard hanging laundry on a rope clothesline to dry. But a light breeze is blowing and you can clearly see that every garment she pulls from the basket is already bone dry. She even "whips" a shirt to straighten it out and you can hear that dry "snap"

Heh, didn't notice the HUGE flaw, although I wouldn't call it huge by any stretch of the imagination.

I informally reviewed this film a couple of weeks ago and my take was a bit more positive than yours. I enjoyed the no BS way Debra Granik paints her world. She's shaping up to be a fine director. I read a feature on her after watching the movie and her maturity and outlook on filmmaking really appeal to me. Anyway...

Winter's Bone (2010)

When I was 17 my primary concern was getting laid and ditching school. My ignorant sheltered view of the world did not extend too far beyond some basic needs. Either I didn’t know the hardships of people around the world, or I didn’t care. I could just as easily pick one, or both. Through film, you could say, I’ve been enlightened.

Sure I read books and follow the news. But the news can only tell me 4 have died in a car accident 15 km from my house. It can’t tell me the aftermath. The life long suffering of the remaining child and her struggle to make sense of this world. Books come close and many succeed. They do lack a visual impact though. I can read all I like about Normandy but watching the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan has an impact that few forget. For these reasons and more, films enlighten me and let me experience this wacky and wonderful world around us.

Last night I was properly put in my place by Winter’s Bone. At 17, Ree has the responsibilities of caring for her 2 younger siblings and her mentally exhausted and non-responsive mother. Already living in poverty, her world just got desperate when her drug dealing father disappears after placing the house as a bond. Ree carries the burden of keeping her family intact while hunting down her father. Met with desperate and violent resistance from family members who have something to hide, she’s determined to either succeed or pay the ultimate price.

This isn’t a film you watch for fun. It’s not a time filler and it’s certainly not one I would recommend to just anyone. If you give it the time, you will find a gritty and honest experience that’s free of any need to impress and one that will affect you.

4/5

[lDlisturb3d]

My Left Foot (Netflix Instant)

Director: Jim Sheridan
Writer: Shane Connaughton
Mains: Daniel Day-Lewis, Brenda Fricker and Alison Whelan

Hope is powerful

Plot: This is the story of Christy Brown (DDL) a man that was born with cerebral palsy. Adapting to his diease he overcomes many difficult challenges and ends up becoming a famous painter and writer using his left foot.

My Take: The movie started off pretty slow for me but still rewarding. Starting off as a child Jim Sheridan gives you a little point of view from Christy's world and as the story progresses so does he. He starts off not able to do anything for himself. Not able to talk no control his bodily movements. The story is based on his personal accomplishments and efforts on being treated normally. I especially loved his family and how his brothers and sister where always there with him and having him apart of all their activities. This was a picture of a true family that loves each other to death. I also was very pleased to see the passion he had for him mom and the passion she returned.

Conclusion: This is a good good movie with SPECTACULAR acting. DDL is the man and he really shows what he can do in this particular film. I loved his mother too (Brenda Fricker) her performance was dead on. This is a film just to sit back and enjoy great performances mixed with a good story. Never give up and always keep trying, even when all odds are against you there's still a chance of accomplishing whatever goals you've set fourth. Great Movie awesome Acting and Well Recommended!

Well Recommended

4/5

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest rental: “Antichrist.”

I went into this being rather skeptical. When I heard that it would be gruesome, disturbing, sick, etc, I feared as to how far it would go. When I saw the title and read about the director’s atheism, I feared how far he would push it. But rest assured, my fears were mostly unfounded. The movie does have some cringe-inducing violence, yes, but still not on the same level as something like a “Saw” movie ironically enough in my review i mention how Saw is NOTHING compared to this because this is much worse and the Saw series would beg for Antichrist to stop. Saw feels like a movie, so the contraptions don't make me wince as much as this, which felt more real imo and was unexpected. There is a lot of graphic sex, probably more so than most other films, but no sexual torture, as with “Salo” and “Caligula” (the combined graphicness of “Antichrist” could never reach the same level as either of those films anyway). Do be advised though that there are a couple of scenes involving disfiguration of certain body parts, which I found particularly gnarly, and a couple of bizarre animal scenes (didn’t find them all that violent necessarily; if anything, the unnaturalness of these scenes accentuated the film overall) i still hated them and found them unnecessary. i don't think any movie needs those type of scenes imo. And as for the themes…well, I’m still thinking about it. I’m not even sure why this film is called “Antichrist,” but there’s nothing that overtly criticizes established faiths, nothing that glorifies Satanism, and I didn’t really catch any atheist themes. Nihilism is the only thing I got out of this, but even then, I don’t know…

[Show spoiler]you caught that the woman thought that while doing her thesis she began to think all women, including herself were riddles with evil and were the seed of all problems? and when she says "the nature is Satan's home" or something like that

The film presents a surprising amount to think about, and on the first viewing I probably only scratched the surface mentally. Right now, I feel that it’s something similar to “Apocalypse Now!” (and by extension, the “Heart of Darkness” story), in which the characters succumb to their primal nature and devolve into uncivilized beasts. very interesting comparison to Apocalypse Now. hmm... if i watch this again i'm gonna have to remember this I think “Antichrist” does so as a journey through Hell as well; the imagery of the forest is often atmospheric and creepy, invoking imagery that reminded me a lot of Dante’s Inferno (whether the poem, the paintings, or the video game; they all had freakish imagery). A lot of individual scenes stand out as some of the creepiest and most invoking images I’ve seen in, well, any film. Right from the start, the film is loaded with images that are both beautiful and brutal; the cinematography alone makes the film worthwhile. agree about the cinematography. absolutely terrific!

I can’t say that it’s the greatest story, or even the most interesting. It took a while for it to totally grab my interest, but once it did it was relentless. The pacing is a bit slow, especially with such limited dialogue and such a simplistic story. But it manages to maintain a lot of tension in the last act. haha, that seems to be the general consensus. surf and i both were feeling like we were gonna give it low scores with how the first hour was, but the second half made up for it and was almost a complete 180 on every level - except directing, cinematography and performances, which were great from the start My big complaint about the story is

[Show spoiler]the woman going nuts. I’m not even sure why she just went psycho like she did; I guess it was the grief and the latent hatred she had for the dude. Even then, wouldn’t a passionate argument been good enough? Why did she have to freakin’ drill a hole in his leg and impale a stone wheel through it?! WTF?!!! why she was the way she was, was because

[Show spoiler]of the loss of her son and thinking it was her fault and that all women are the heart of sin (or close to that, surf writes it out better than i can

That’s the scene that really made me cringe. As unreasonable as this character seemed, I couldn’t help but to think of “Pinocchio 964,” another movie in which a chick goes psycho for some unknown reason (puking up a massive pile of yellow goo before yelling, screaming, and torturing the title android character. Yeah that was crazy. Thank goodness “Antichrist” wasn’t that unreasonable, but still… )

.

Overall, I found this film way more fascinating than I initially thought I would.

4/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 5/5, intellectual impact: 5/5) Score might improve with repeated viewings.

While the B&N sale is still ongoing, I might order a copy.

my thoughts and inquiries are in your review in bold and spoilers where necessary
btw, great review Al!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

My Left Foot (Netflix Instant)

suddenly someone has netflix...?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

my thoughts and inquiries are in your review in bold and spoilers where necessary
btw, great review Al!

Thank you. I think I see what you mean about the violence; I felt that some of the other torture porn films out there have a lot more frequent violence and a lot more gnarly dismemberments, but "Antichrist" seems to have a bigger impact with less frequent and (somewhat) less graphic scenes.

After writing my thoughts, I saw surfdude's notes earlier. It's very interesting... It might make better sense on repeated viewings.