The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by CZAR

So what movies have u daw? Got Em!!

[Show spoiler]

Many. I dee a lot of movies. I just daw Tangled.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Many. I dee a lot of movies. I just daw Tangled.

Man I heard Tangled was a great film to dee but I aint ever daw it myself. Got Em!!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Spider-Man 2

[Show spoiler]
Ah the sequel. What is the goal of a sequel? (Well besides to make buckets of cash ) To be bigger and better. It's more likely than not the movie ends up only being bigger though. Spider-Man 2 isn't one of those cases however

Like the first one its meant to be a simple and fun movie and again it succeeds. This one is a better movie than the last. No stupid choice given to the hero at the end that annoys me And most of the stuff that worked in the first films works more this time.

Dunst is still annoying, so that's the same.

But Franco is a little better as Harry this time and I like the character more. Maguire is a little better as Peter as well. They has some better stuff to work with this time.

Molina isn't quite as good as Dafoe as the villain in this film, but he's still very good as Octavius. He's also one of the better villains in these movies.

I love the scene in the operating room; its like a superhero horror movie

My biggest with Spider-Man 2 is that this is the movie where EVERYBODY SCREAMS. Okay, not everybody, but pretty darn close to it! Watch this movie and take a shot every time someone screams, you'll be passed out on the floor before the half way point


This movie is the best of the Pre-Nolan comic book movie era.

Rating - 4.25/5

Smashing. "Spidey 2" is my favorite of the lot, although I liked #3 quite a bit as well.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Both.

Spidy 2 felt like one big action scene with no story.

Yeah...

AIN'T IT COOL?!!!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Many. I dee a lot of movies. I just daw Tangled.

Where's Sylvester at Tweet?

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Smashing. "Spidey 2" is my favorite of the lot, although I liked #3 quite a bit as well.



Yeah...

AIN'T IT COOL?!!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Smashing. "Spidey 2" is my favorite of the lot, although I liked #3 quite a bit as well.



Yeah...

AIN'T IT COOL?!!!

A "little" story goes a long way.

[AKORIS]

THE EXPENDABLES


okay, my brother-in-law said it sucked, I've read more than a few negative comments here about it so I figured I'd still give it a try and came in with low expectations....

to say I was pleasantly surprised in a gross understatement--

I simply had a great time watching this flick!!

Enormously entertaining, awesome cast (all clearly having a great time), lots of laughs, cool action--- I don't know-- what the hell were people expecting from this flick... Shakespeare??

Stallone continues to impress me, Statham is super cool, Li was great, Dolph Lundgren and Eric Roberts had their best roles in years and years, and Mickey Rourke gives another charasmatic performance (to add to WRESTLER and IRON MAN 2)

Best action film I've seen in a long time

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

For my next watching, I'm deciding between:

3:10 to Yuma

The Day the Earth Stood Still (original)

Reign of Fire

X2

Avatar

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

For my next watching, I'm deciding between:

3:10 to Yuma

The Day the Earth Stood Still (original)

Reign of Fire

X2

Avatar

Why don't you and Squid just have a fistfight already? I refuse to add some stupid emoticon that makes you think i'm joking. I'm not. I wanna see some blood.

[Batman1980]

Watching Shrek Forever After, very surprised to see

[Show spoiler]the king alive in it

will finish it after work and then post my review of it.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: “Miller’s Crossing.”

Offhand, I can’t say I really connected with the story/characters that well. Maybe because film-noir-style movies have that effect on me initially. Maybe because gangster/crime movies have that effect on me too. Or maybe because it’s so dialogue-intensive.

The film is a little slow-going. But, when the action hits, it is pretty darn violent and badass. Some parts are pretty darn invoking. As a comedy, there are plenty of amusing scenes, but I rarely laughed out loud. It’s an effective balance between comedy and drama, and a balance between trying to invoke laughter and tears. Altogether, there are a good amount of distinctive stand-out scenes; repeat viewings might connect with me better.

The film is a good-looking one; photography is very solid, and the film is very stylish. The production value features a decent period reproduction with lots of great-looking settings, props, costumes, cars, weapons, and the like. Acting is superb all around; they definitely recreated the accents and slang of the era really well, see? I usually don’t care much for Gabriel Byrne, but he was great in this role. Marcia Gay Harden is great (and surprisingly lovely). There’s also a little cameo from a guy who’s kinda funny-looking.

Based on the film’s visuals, style, content, and production value, I think it would go good with “Harlem Nights.” And possibly “Road to Perdition” or “The Untouchables.” As a dark comedy, it does remind me a bit of “Fargo.”

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

Recommendation: Rent it, see what you think.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest rental: “Miller’s Crossing.”

Offhand, I can’t say I really connected with the story/characters that well. Maybe because film-noir-style movies have that effect on me initially. Maybe because gangster/crime movies have that effect on me too. Or maybe because it’s so dialogue-intensive.

The film is a little slow-going. But, when the action hits, it is pretty darn violent and badass. Some parts are pretty darn invoking. As a comedy, there are plenty of amusing scenes, but I rarely laughed out loud. It’s an effective balance between comedy and drama, and a balance between trying to invoke laughter and tears. Altogether, there are a good amount of distinctive stand-out scenes; repeat viewings might connect with me better.

The film is a good-looking one; photography is very solid, and the film is very stylish. The production value features a decent period reproduction with lots of great-looking settings, props, costumes, cars, weapons, and the like. Acting is superb all around; they definitely recreated the accents and slang of the era really well, see? I usually don’t care much for Gabriel Byrne, but he was great in this role. Marcia Gay Harden is great (and surprisingly lovely). There’s also a little cameo from a guy who’s kinda funny-looking.

Based on the film’s visuals, style, content, and production value, I think it would go good with “Harlem Nights.” And possibly “Road to Perdition” or “The Untouchables.” As a dark comedy, it does remind me a bit of “Fargo.”

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

Recommendation: Rent it, see what you think.

You giving me the high hat!! That scene with Buscemi talking a mile minute is great.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

You giving me the high hat!! That scene with Buscemi talking a mile minute is great.

Thanks for the spoiler tag there and always thought Buscemi's best role was in Island.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

You giving me the high hat!! That scene with Buscemi talking a mile minute is great.

Right on!

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Thanks for the spoiler tag there and always thought Buscemi's best role was in Island.

Is a spoiler tag necessary? What got spoiled?

Are you giving us the high hat or what, see?

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Thanks for the spoiler tag there and always thought Buscemi's best role was in Island.

Huh? What spoiler?

[Diesel]

I decided playing my PS3 for a couple hours was more important than watching Avatar

I'll get to it eventually.

[KilloWertz]

I don't feel like quoting 5 or 6 posts and I'm kinda rushing through this post, so enjoy...

I love both Spider-Man 1 and 2, but Diesel already knew that. I'd actually put them above some of the other beloved comic book films.

3:10 to Yuma, in my opinion, is the best western I've seen in a long time. If you're not into westerns though, then I can let it slide.

Squid, where does Tangled rank for you in terms of animated films for this year? I already know How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 were your #1 and #2 for the year.

[two40]

28 Days Later... (2002)

A zombie movie is a zombie movie is a zombie movie. What we have here… is a zombie movie. You didn’t see that coming did you?

28 Days Later… follows a much told plot line of survival after an apocalyptic virus turns humans into zombie like creatures. In some films they can’t come out in the daylight for some reason (vampire envy is my guess) and others they’re slow and dumb creatures shuffling their feet towards their victims and in others yet, they’re fast, intelligent and ruthless killers. In 28, they are of the latter kind. If there ever was an apocalypse and I was one of the last men standing, and of course I would be, then the fast and fierce zombie would be my choice. If I get stuck with any other type, I’m committing suicide by overeating marshmallows.

In any zombie film, you will note that the type of zombie employed is selected purely to drive the plot in certain key scenes. They make their appearances when a fright is required, a member of the small human group needs to be shed, or when they need to be herded to a certain location. Need a touch of suspense? Dial 555-3879 for a random zombie to jump out of the next corner. Your pacing is suffering? We have many zombies on call to fulfill your needs. It’s no different here with zombies appearing just when we need them.

In 28 Days Later…, three well-meaning animal activist hippies attempt to rescue monkeys from lab research only to release a virus onto the populace of England. 28 days later, a hospital patient wakes up to eerily empty streets in the usually teeming city of London. Oblivious to anything that has happened in the past month, he faces unimaginable horrors and does his average Joe best to survive.

The rest of the film follows a small group of people as they try to survive and find safety in a larger community governed by what’s left of the army. Seeking hope for a future beyond the day to day struggle to stay alive could well be more dangerous than risking their lives amongst the zombies. As in many survivalist films, we are treated to the ironic comparison of the brain dead and evil zombies to the fully conscious and evil human nature. Which one will you take your chances with?

The film starts out very strong with eerie images of abandoned London. The scenes are very effective in creating an apocalyptic feel. Shot very early in the morning, they closed the extremely busy CBD streets of London, quickly prepared them with signs of abandonment and shot their scenes in a hurry. For anyone that lives in London, or has seen the flurry of activity in any busy CBD, the set of scenes really do send chills down your spine.

Despite the predictable plot line, 28 Days Later… is an enjoyable zombie flick. Deliberately shot in standard definition in a time when high definition is the norm, it has a rough gritty feel which suits the subject matter. The whole film feels low budget, and it is at $8 million, but it’s all the better for it. There’s nothing too showy about it and it just gets the job done of scaring you every once in a while and entertaining you throughout.

3.5/5

[Romulus]

Finals are over with and I can finally participate in this thread again.

Okay, so where do I even begin? I feel like I've learned a ton of invaluable information when it comes to film this semester. I won't go off on a huge tangent, so I'll start with this for my first (of many) reviews to come.

Die Hard (1988)

The flat out best description of a high concept film. No, high concept is not a term applied to films such as Apocalypse Now or 2001: A Space Odyssey. High Concept is a term used to described films that offer a "unique" idea that can be conveyed briefly. In other words, it's mainstream films.

With that in mind, Die Hard fires on all cylinders. The only film from the Die Hard series that I've seen is Live Free or Die Hard, which I did not care for in any sense. With that in mind I went into the film with very low expectations. To my surprise though, Die Hard delivered on many levels. The plot was very good for an action film without letting completely absurd concepts overrun the film that you find in most modern action films today. All the characters are great, as one dimensional and flat as they are. I definitely felt the strongest emotional connection with Sgt. Alan Powell and his dilemma of never firing a gun. The dilemma is simple, but it was extremely well executed and placed. Alan Rickman steals the show overall playing the stoic and sophisticated Hans Gruber. I wouldn't necessarily say that there were any throw away characters. Every character served a purpose in the cause and effect chain that dominates high concept films.

I feel what Die Hard does the best is how simple everything is portrayed. The plot is simple, the characters are simple, the action isn't overblown (no pun intended), and the story isn't filled asinine plot points. In my opinion, this is how an action film should be done.

4/5

...More to come.


Oh and another note, I doubt I'll have absurdly long reviews for most of my films unless it's absolutely warranted. Example, Die Hard is a simple and straightforward film so it doesn't require a large wall of text. I feel that would be completely contradictory for what the film does: portray everything simply. On the other hand if a film contains numerous themes and has a lot to offer, such as American Beauty, then I'll type a little longer reviews. Just don't expect a huge bible when it comes to my reviews.

[Hep]

Once

I loved this movie. This is movie making in its purest form. It was done on the cheap and relied on the only elements that really matter: the story, the directing, the acting, the score.

The story is a simple tale of love after the pause button is hit; kindred spirits unable to jump the tracks; soul mates denied. The director made this movie feel much less like a movie and much more like a fly-on-the-wall home video. It epitomizes the cliché “acting so good it doesn’t seem like acting”. Both Markéta Irglová and Glen Hansard’s backstories seem to mirror the characters, so I wonder how much acting is actually taking place. The score of this movie is its heart. This is a true musical in the sense that the story is largely told through the songs; but the integration of them into the setting is so natural and smart that it seems plausible. The best part is that (much of) the singing is recorded live, and that lends itself to the genuine vibe of the film. Not only is it live, but it is incredibly strong and poignant.

The PQ is nothing to boast about, but considering the budget and intended look of the film, it is very strong. I’m not confident enough in my knowledge of the limitations of the HDV camera used, so I can’t tell how close this is to perfection, so my assessment is based more on how it looks to me (4/5). The AQ on this disc is perfect however. Let me put some conditions on that claim. It is lossless, but only DTS-HDMA 2.0. I don’t know what sound mix was used in the theatre, but if it was stereo, I suspect the movie’s budget dictated that decision. In any case, the movie lives and dies on the music, and many music lovers prefer stereo. Personally, I have no issues with surround music and I would have liked to hear more atmospheric surrounds used (street noise or party sounds). Although I don’t think the movie is seriously harmed by this omission, it is an area for improvement. In any case, assuming stereo is the director’s intent, due to budget or otherwise, this soundtrack is fantastic (5/5).

Bravo to this film for creating such a true and gritty window into a fantastic pairing; neither of whom are overly notable individually, but greatly exceed the sum of their parts when together. Very highly recommended.

5/5

Squid: so this is yet another musical that you like? I think you’re holding out on us with your “I don’t like musicals” ruse .

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Hep

Once

I loved this movie. This is movie making in its purest form. It was done on the cheap and relied on the only elements that really matter: the story, the directing, the acting, the score.

The story is a simple tale of love after the pause button is hit; kindred spirits unable to jump the tracks; soul mates denied. The director made this movie feel much less like a movie and much more like a fly-on-the-wall home video. It epitomizes the cliché “acting so good it doesn’t seem like acting”. Both Markéta Irglová and Glen Hansard’s backstories seem to mirror the characters, so I wonder how much acting is actually taking place. The score of this movie is its heart. This is a true musical in the sense that the story is largely told through the songs; but the integration of them into the setting is so natural and smart that it seems plausible. The best part is that (much of) the singing is recorded live, and that lends itself to the genuine vibe of the film. Not only is it live, but it is incredibly strong and poignant.

The PQ is nothing to boast about, but considering the budget and intended look of the film, it is very strong. I’m not confident enough in my knowledge of the limitations of the HDV camera used, so I can’t tell how close this is to perfection, so my assessment is based more on how it looks to me (4/5). The AQ on this disc is perfect however. Let me put some conditions on that claim. It is lossless, but only DTS-HDMA 2.0. I don’t know what sound mix was used in the theatre, but if it was stereo, I suspect the movie’s budget dictated that decision. In any case, the movie lives and dies on the music, and many music lovers prefer stereo. Personally, I have no issues with surround music and I would have liked to hear more atmospheric surrounds used (street noise or party sounds). Although I don’t think the movie is seriously harmed by this omission, it is an area for improvement. In any case, assuming stereo is the director’s intent, due to budget or otherwise, this soundtrack is fantastic (5/5).

Bravo to this film for creating such a true and gritty window into a fantastic pairing; neither of whom are overly notable individually, but greatly exceed the sum of their parts when together. Very highly recommended.

5/5

Squid: so this is yet another musical that you like? I think you’re holding out on us with your “I don’t like musicals” ruse .

Excellent. I was hoping you would react to it as strongly as I did

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by two40

28 Days Later... (2002)

[Show spoiler]
A zombie movie is a zombie movie is a zombie movie. What we have here… is a zombie movie. You didn’t see that coming did you?

28 Days Later… follows a much told plot line of survival after an apocalyptic virus turns humans into zombie like creatures. In some films they can’t come out in the daylight for some reason (vampire envy is my guess) and others they’re slow and dumb creatures shuffling their feet towards their victims and in others yet, they’re fast, intelligent and ruthless killers. In 28, they are of the latter kind. If there ever was an apocalypse and I was one of the last men standing, and of course I would be, then the fast and fierce zombie would be my choice. If I get stuck with any other type, I’m committing suicide by overeating marshmallows.

In any zombie film, you will note that the type of zombie employed is selected purely to drive the plot in certain key scenes. They make their appearances when a fright is required, a member of the small human group needs to be shed, or when they need to be herded to a certain location. Need a touch of suspense? Dial 555-3879 for a random zombie to jump out of the next corner. Your pacing is suffering? We have many zombies on call to fulfill your needs. It’s no different here with zombies appearing just when we need them.

In 28 Days Later…, three well-meaning animal activist hippies attempt to rescue monkeys from lab research only to release a virus onto the populace of England. 28 days later, a hospital patient wakes up to eerily empty streets in the usually teeming city of London. Oblivious to anything that has happened in the past month, he faces unimaginable horrors and does his average Joe best to survive.

The rest of the film follows a small group of people as they try to survive and find safety in a larger community governed by what’s left of the army. Seeking hope for a future beyond the day to day struggle to stay alive could well be more dangerous than risking their lives amongst the zombies. As in many survivalist films, we are treated to the ironic comparison of the brain dead and evil zombies to the fully conscious and evil human nature. Which one will you take your chances with?

The film starts out very strong with eerie images of abandoned London. The scenes are very effective in creating an apocalyptic feel. Shot very early in the morning, they closed the extremely busy CBD streets of London, quickly prepared them with signs of abandonment and shot their scenes in a hurry. For anyone that lives in London, or has seen the flurry of activity in any busy CBD, the set of scenes really do send chills down your spine.

Despite the predictable plot line, 28 Days Later… is an enjoyable zombie flick. Deliberately shot in standard definition in a time when high definition is the norm, it has a rough gritty feel which suits the subject matter. The whole film feels low budget, and it is at $8 million, but it’s all the better for it. There’s nothing too showy about it and it just gets the job done of scaring you every once in a while and entertaining you throughout.

3.5/5

I've always had mixed feelings about this one. In the end, I gave it the same rating, and got the BD as a permanent part of my collection.

I agree, the London scenes are wicked!