The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Good review! Honesty is the best policy!

Here is my take on this review and Paths of Glory -- I read both reviews as your genuine dissatisfaction with the war genre, not so much the films themselves? (I know you had told me before how you generally didn't like war genre films, right?) Isn't it like the mafia genre, where any mafia film is pretty much D.O.A?

Let me know your thoughts. It would be like the action-superhero genre for me. Sure, there is the occasional film I really like (Batman Begins) that I gave 4/5 stars to, but that was the exception not the rule.

pretty much yes. even though Paths of Glory is less of a typical war film than say Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, so i was glad for that, but there's something about those types of films that just doesn't click with me. some i give "high" scores to (The Then Red Line 4/5) but wouldn't necessarily watch again for a very long time.

i try not to throw every mafia / gangster and war film in the D.O.A. pile, which is why i still am open to watching them, but i just don't get connected to them nearly as much as i do with other films. which is almost exactly like you and the superhero genre (which i am the same way), there are exceptions, no dead set "oh, this is a war film? i'm gonna dislike it" rule, because that would be childish and unfair, but generally i just don't like them, but mainly the setting / environment than what's happening in the film.

[Batman1980]

Avatar(3 hour cut) 5/5 all around again, just a phenomenal movie with a reference transfer made even better by the extra 16 minutes, one scene I wish they had kept in

[Show spoiler]was Quaritch taking over the company before the big battle.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

there are exceptions, no dead set "oh, this is a war film? i'm gonna dislike it" rule, because that would be childish and unfair, but generally i just don't like them, but mainly the setting / environment than what's happening in the film.

well, I applaud you for sitting through the 3 1/2 hour film, despite not enjoying it all! And the fact that you even were willing to watch it and Paths of Glory shows you don't have any hard-and-fast genre rules on what you will/won't watch. you're staying open-minded, which I will admit is much better than me in some of the action genre

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

well, I applaud you for sitting through the 3 1/2 hour film, despite not enjoying it all! And the fact that you even were willing to watch it and Paths of Glory shows you don't have any hard-and-fast genre rules on what you will/won't watch. you're staying open-minded, which I will admit is much better than me in some of the action genre

haha thanks surf although i must admit i will probably not be watching as many "you gotta see this!" type films if they don't match up with my general taste in films, but every once and awhile i will.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Avatar(3 hour cut) 5/5 all around again, just a phenomenal movie with a reference transfer made even better by the extra 16 minutes, one scene I wish they had kept in

[Show spoiler]was Quaritch taking over the company before the big battle.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i'm still here. where did i write that i upped the score because it's regarded as a classic? i said i upped the score because of individual merits.

What we mean is your review reads less than the score u gave it. If u wouldnt have gave a score and just gave the review, I think most of us wouldnt have guessed u felt the film was a 3 1/2 star film. So with the mystique behind the film and the score u gave it based off what u wrote some of us think u may have been influenced just a bit by the nostalgia of the film. If that isnt the case thats fine, just sumthin some of us thought we noticed. No biggie. Got Em!!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by CZAR

What we mean is your review reads less than the score u gave it. If u wouldnt have gave a score and just gave the review, I think most of us wouldnt have guessed u felt the film was a 3 1/2 star film. So with the mystique behind the film and the score u gave it based off what u wrote some of us think u may have been influenced just a bit by the nostalgia of the film. If that isnt the case thats fine, just sumthin some of us thought we noticed. No biggie. Got Em!!

gotcha
the 3.5 came from the directing, acting, general story (although film really streeeeeeetched it out too much) cinematography and atmosphere. none of it came from the perceived notion of it being highly regarded. i'm with you, just because something is well received doesn't make it instantly great (hell, i gave The Godfather 3/5 which drove people nuts ), you have judge for yourself before assigning a score, and can't go in with a score already in your mind because of any mystique.

[Al_The_Strange]

Before I continue with these fine Criterion movies, I gotta get this old blind-buy out of the way…

“Arn: The Knight Templar.”

Seemed like it’d be a good deal for $13. Then I learned that it’s actually a shortened version of a much longer miniseries.

Not that it matters though; the film is paced and edited in a way that allows it to stand on its own. I’m not detecting any glaring plot holes or lapses or anything else. I’m sure a longer version probably is better, but as it is this shortened film version is not bad. It’s kinda like when they made the “RahXephon” movie out of the 26-episode “RahXephon” series; get the gist of the whole thing in two hours. Why not?

So, on its own merits, this film is….okay. Much more of a drama more than anything. As such, I can’t say it held my interest all the way through. It warmed up after a while though; the drama has its moments, and can be entertaining. But it’s certainly not on the same level as “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven,” as I initially expected. There is a fairly cool battle at the end, but

[Show spoiler]kinda dumb too. The one side launches one arrow, which landed and marked the range in which all ensuing arrows would land. Surely, where there’s one arrow, there would be many; I would think that this warning shot would indicate that. Did the opposing army not think there would be more than one archer? Apparently so, because their leader sent in all his cavalry to get slaughtered by a storm of arrows, and then uttered “It’s a trap!” WELL DUH!

I just thought that part was a little silly.

I can say that the film is beautifully shot; its imagery would be about as great as the latest “Robin Hood” film. And its production design looks splendid. Acting and writing are adequate.

As for the story, it’s nothing terribly complicated, and if anything it’s been done before. Halfway through it, I realized it’s a bit like the original “Odyssey,” in which some hero goes to war, believed to be dead, has a loved one waiting at home, journey ensues… “Arn” does tack on a lot of other interesting issues that elevates it to a league of its own (the political issues are particularly strong, showing the conflict between different clans, and portraying the power of the Church, among other things), but it still feels a little unoriginal in a way. Characters are rather touching, but I wouldn’t call them deep or anything.

I read somewhere that the original novel series for this was better too. Go figure.

3/5 (entertainment: 2.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: Meh. If at all interested, rent it and see what you think. Otherwise, stick with “Kingdom of Heaven.”

This Blu-Ray does look great. A little bright with weak contrast perhaps, but it is nicely sharp and detailed with splendid colors. Sound quality seems okay.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4/5

[Diesel]

American Gangster

Wasn't sure what to make of this one going in. I didn't really know anything about it. Denzel Washington was in it, Russell Crowe was in it and it was called American Gangster. I didn't even know Ridley Scott directed it until his name came up after the movie. Then some of you guys said it was good and some of you said it wasn't so good. I didn't have a baseline to go off of


Turns out I really enjoyed it.

I liked

[Show spoiler]him not being thought of as "big stuff" that needed to be respected at first and eventually becoming the biggest, baddest guy around, Crowe being the cop who did the right thing on the job (contrasted with his personal life not exactly being as honorable) and especially the brief interaction between the characters we got at the end and that they didn't meet until that point.

I loved the contrast between the two characters, who were basically mirror images of each other. One has an honorable personal life with a not so much professional life and the other a not so much personal life and a honorable professional life. Showing us who these two opposing characters where in each side of their life really added to the movie a lot.


I gotta say, CZAR's main man did really good. I loved how he would just go from calm, cool and collected to

[Show spoiler]blowing a guys freaking brains out in the middle of the street!! When that happened I was just to see when/if he would snap in more situations like that.

I thought he did a very good job, but I usually do. I haven't seen all of Denzel's films, but the ones I have seen him in I've always enjoyed his performances.

Crowe was also pretty good in his role. Nothing stand out, but the character wasn't that sort of character, so it was appropriate. Just a good solid performance.


All that said....it hasn't avoided the One and Done Collection


Rating - 4.5/5

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

American Gangster

[Show spoiler]Wasn't sure what to make of this one going in. I didn't really know anything about it. Denzel Washington was in it, Russell Crowe was in it and it was called American Gangster. I didn't even know Ridley Scott directed it until his name came up after the movie. Then some of you guys said it was good and some of you said it wasn't so good. I didn't have a baseline to go off of


Turns out I really enjoyed it.

I liked

[Show spoiler]him not being thought of as "big stuff" that needed to be respected at first and eventually becoming the biggest, baddest guy around, Crowe being the cop who did the right thing on the job (contrasted with his personal life not exactly being as honorable) and especially the brief interaction between the characters we got at the end and that they didn't meet until that point.

I loved the contrast between the two characters, who were basically mirror images of each other. One has an honorable personal life with a not so much professional life and the other a not so much personal life and a honorable professional life. Showing us who these two opposing characters where in each side of their life really added to the movie a lot.


I gotta say, CZAR's main man did really good. I loved how he would just go from calm, cool and collected to

[Show spoiler]blowing a guys freaking brains out in the middle of the street!! When that happened I was just to see when/if he would snap in more situations like that.

I thought he did a very good job, but I usually do. I haven't seen all of Denzel's films, but the ones I have seen him in I've always enjoyed his performances.

Crowe was also pretty good in his role. Nothing stand out, but the character wasn't that sort of character, so it was appropriate. Just a good solid performance.


All that said....it hasn't avoided the One and Done Collection

Rating - 4.5/5

great review Diesel, glad you enjoyed it!
i don't know if you saw any previews for the film when it came out, but i remember when it ended i was like, wait a minute

[Show spoiler]Denzel and Crowe don't even really have a scene together for the first 2+ hours! hell, Denzel's character doesn't even know who Richie (Crowe) is!

the previews made it seem like a great

[Show spoiler]back and forth battle between the two, when really it was just a constant "cat chasing the mouse" film. without the mouse knowing!

not that how the movie actually was, was bad. just once again those damn previews trick me into thinking one thing and showing me another

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

great review Diesel, glad you enjoyed it!
i don't know if you saw any previews for the film when it came out, but i remember when it ended i was like, wait a minute

[Show spoiler]Denzel and Crowe don't even really have a scene together for the first 2+ hours! hell, Denzel's character doesn't even know who Richie (Crowe) is!

the previews made it seem like a great

[Show spoiler]back and forth battle between the two, when really it was just a constant "cat chasing the mouse" film. without the mouse knowing!

not that how the movie actually was, was bad. just once again those damn previews trick me into thinking one thing and showing me another

I hadn't seen any previews before, so I had no expectations


Blasted trailers
I hate when they are sooo far off from what the actual movie is.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

gotcha
the 3.5 came from the directing, acting, general story (although film really streeeeeeetched it out too much) cinematography and atmosphere. none of it came from the perceived notion of it being highly regarded. i'm with you, just because something is well received doesn't make it instantly great (hell, i gave The Godfather 3/5 which drove people nuts ), you have judge for yourself before assigning a score, and can't go in with a score already in your mind because of any mystique.

True dat man. Its good to see people with a mind of their own and form their own opinions. be true to yourself always. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Diesel

American Gangster

[Show spoiler]Wasn't sure what to make of this one going in. I didn't really know anything about it. Denzel Washington was in it, Russell Crowe was in it and it was called American Gangster. I didn't even know Ridley Scott directed it until his name came up after the movie. Then some of you guys said it was good and some of you said it wasn't so good. I didn't have a baseline to go off of


Turns out I really enjoyed it.

I liked

[Show spoiler]him not being thought of as "big stuff" that needed to be respected at first and eventually becoming the biggest, baddest guy around, Crowe being the cop who did the right thing on the job (contrasted with his personal life not exactly being as honorable) and especially the brief interaction between the characters we got at the end and that they didn't meet until that point.

I loved the contrast between the two characters, who were basically mirror images of each other. One has an honorable personal life with a not so much professional life and the other a not so much personal life and a honorable professional life. Showing us who these two opposing characters where in each side of their life really added to the movie a lot.

I gotta say, CZAR's main man did really good. I loved how he would just go from calm, cool and collected to

[Show spoiler]blowing a guys freaking brains out in the middle of the street!! When that happened I was just to see when/if he would snap in more situations like that.

I thought he did a very good job, but I usually do. I haven't seen all of Denzel's films, but the ones I have seen him in I've always enjoyed his performances.

Crowe was also pretty good in his role. Nothing stand out, but the character wasn't that sort of character, so it was appropriate. Just a good solid performance.


All that said....it hasn't avoided the One and Done Collection


Rating - 4.5/5

Yea man very good flick. I still need to add this to the blu collection actually. Denzel is a beast! Got Em!!

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats a good comedy, and I thought he was hilarious in it. Wait until you see how he treats his wife.

I figure I will agree with you. Obviously since I am blind buying it, but that's beside the point. I will make sure to pay attention to how he treats Eva Mendes (lucky bastard).

Originally Posted by Diesel

American Gangster

[Show spoiler]
Wasn't sure what to make of this one going in. I didn't really know anything about it. Denzel Washington was in it, Russell Crowe was in it and it was called American Gangster. I didn't even know Ridley Scott directed it until his name came up after the movie. Then some of you guys said it was good and some of you said it wasn't so good. I didn't have a baseline to go off of


Turns out I really enjoyed it.

I liked

[Show spoiler]him not being thought of as "big stuff" that needed to be respected at first and eventually becoming the biggest, baddest guy around, Crowe being the cop who did the right thing on the job (contrasted with his personal life not exactly being as honorable) and especially the brief interaction between the characters we got at the end and that they didn't meet until that point.

I loved the contrast between the two characters, who were basically mirror images of each other. One has an honorable personal life with a not so much professional life and the other a not so much personal life and a honorable professional life. Showing us who these two opposing characters where in each side of their life really added to the movie a lot.


I gotta say, CZAR's main man did really good. I loved how he would just go from calm, cool and collected to

[Show spoiler]blowing a guys freaking brains out in the middle of the street!! When that happened I was just to see when/if he would snap in more situations like that.

I thought he did a very good job, but I usually do. I haven't seen all of Denzel's films, but the ones I have seen him in I've always enjoyed his performances.

Crowe was also pretty good in his role. Nothing stand out, but the character wasn't that sort of character, so it was appropriate. Just a good solid performance.


All that said....it hasn't avoided the One and Done Collection

Rating - 4.5/5

If it's any consolation, I saw the movie already and completely forgot Ridley Scott was the director until you mentioned it in your review.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by vega2K

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

[Show spoiler]Watched this last night, not my kind of movie (I'm getting old), but I enjoyed it as a one shot.

Storyline (IMDb): Scott Pilgrim plays in a band which aspires to success. He dates Knives Chau, a high-school girl five years his junior, and he hasn't recovered from being dumped by his former girlfriend, now a success with her own band. When Scott falls for Ramona Flowers, he has trouble breaking up with Knives and tries to romance Ramona. As if juggling two women wasn't enough, Ramona comes with baggage: seven ex-lovers, with each of whom Scott must do battle to the death in order to win Ramona.

My take: The beginning is pretty cool, funny, clever -- then, and all of a sudden, it's graphic novel nature hits you in the face,

[Show spoiler]when the main character is attacked by a mystical flying ex-boyfriend (not his, but of his potential girl-friend ).

The movie continues in this manner, with ridiculous fight scenes and outlandish occurrances. BBBUUUTTT, to my surprise, I enjoyed it! I especially liked the cool graphics they used and "pop-up notes/comments" which, at least to me, enhanced the movie. It was funny at times and stupid at other times, but I recommended it. The best part of this movie is the AQ! I had to lower the volume several times! It really showed-off my Subwoofers!

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 5/5

Movie: 3.5/5

Final comments: A definite rental recommendation. The replay value, for me, would be next to zero, but to experience the awesome sound from this movie, it may be worth a cheap purchase!

This movie really hit all angles it was trying to approach. Easy 5 for me. Granted its not a drama or a piece of "ART" it still entertained me. I give movies fair ratings no matter the genre. Scott Pilgrim vs the World is a unique brilliant comedy. While some people like seeing movies like "Hangover" (Which was good 4.5/5) (But a clear example of vulgar jokes to entertain childish minds) Scott Pilgrim vs the World took a completely opposite route. Just My Opinion.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

If i had the choice of watching "Avatar" "Last of the Mohicans" or "Dances with Wolves" i would pick Avatar in a heart beat. It clearly shows the ambition of a great director and above all great acting. Same story? Yep but i rather watch something that set a standard for movie making and special effects. Its a NON STOP NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC RIDE for all ages.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I've been getting the run around from the local stores. Last week, an employee at a local B&N said their Thin Red Line shipment will be coming in the next day so I reserved a copy. I called the next day and suddenly it's on back order, ETA 4-6 weeks. I called another store on Sunday when I was online and saw that it was available in store. They told me that the shipment would come in yesterday, and when I called today they told me it could possibly be another two weeks.

That sucks about the wait, have you contacted them for an update? I'm a temporary member so I selected the free 1-3 day express shipping. Hopefully it won't take too long

Man that sucks. I just received my "The Thin Red Line" but as i mentioned i ordered it on the 1st. I hope you find a alternative that will please you. You're just getting the short end of the stick bud.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

If i had the choice of watching "Avatar" "Last of the Mohicans" or "Dances with Wolves" i would pick Avatar in a heart beat. It clearly shows the ambition of a great director and above all great acting. Same story? Yep but i rather watch something that set a standard for movie making and special effects. Its a NON STOP NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC RIDE for all ages.

As someone who actually likes Avatar....I can't agree with you there.

Zoe Saldana does a really good job and Worthington and Lang do the best with what they have to work with....but after that, the other performances were at best imo.



I haven't seen Dances with Wolves, but between Avatar and Last of the Mohicans, definitely Last of the Mohicans.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

If i had the choice of watching "Avatar" "Last of the Mohicans" or "Dances with Wolves" i would pick Avatar in a heart beat. It clearly shows the ambition of a great director and above all great acting. Same story? Yep but i rather watch something that set a standard for movie making and special effects. Its a NON STOP NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC RIDE for all ages.

I agree that Avatar is more ambitious than both Mohicans and Wolves. However, I can't believe you just said that you would pick it because it has "above all great acting." Many things have been said about Avatar, both positive and negative, but I've yet to hear the words "great" and "acting" in the same sentence in regards to that movie until now. Why? Because while the performances are effective for their particular roles, they are far from exemplary. In other words, they're merely average to good performances, no more no less.

Last of the Mohicans has two terrific performances. One is from an acting you've understated the greatness of in the past, Daniel Day-Lewis, and the other is the very effective performance from Wes Studi. Dances with Wolves is a great ensemble piece, but Costner is fantastic.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Diesel

As someone who actually likes Avatar....I can't agree with you there.

Zoe Saldana does a really good job and Worthington and Lang do the best with what they have to work with....but after that, the other performances were at best imo.



I haven't seen Dances with Wolves, but between Avatar and Last of the Mohicans, definitely Last of the Mohicans.

I truly dont see why people dont like this dude. I think he's a good actor. I think he role was perfect too for the film.
But you have no argument here. I just dont get the bashing of Avatar. I think its going through the whole "Star Wars" pipeline because of its popularity.
In my eyes a GOOD movie is a GOOD movie. Im just sayin.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Good review! Honesty is the best policy!

Here is my take on this review and Paths of Glory -- I read both reviews as your genuine dissatisfaction with the war genre, not so much the films themselves? (I know you had told me before how you generally didn't like war genre films, right?) Isn't it like the mafia genre, where any mafia film is pretty much D.O.A?

Let me know your thoughts. It would be like the action-superhero genre for me. Sure, there is the occasional film I really like (Batman Begins) that I gave 4/5 stars to, but that was the exception not the rule.

I think you're right about his approach to those films. I'm the same as you--the superhero genre doesn't do much for me because there are no exceptional, all-time classic films in that genre when considering film as a whole. The source material generally prevents that.