The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"Revenge of Riddick" it is then!

For a while there they said it would be Chronicles of Riddick: Dead Man Stalking


That's worse than Fast Five!!!


Then last they said it would be just Riddick


I'm still that Fast Five will be changed to Fast & Furious 5 at the last minute...that's what I call it; I will not say "Fast Five" when asking for my ticket

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What are you trying to say? That my humor is remedial? Dude, your being such a studio head.

Remedial is a good word. I appreciate you bringing it back to my attention.

It looks as though we're having a "movie review family reunion" today.

I guess i'm gonna go see "Narnia" with the family now. Tried to convince the wife to let me and the boy go see True Grit separately, but her right thinking mind probably came to the right conclusion on that one. I just really don't like these Narnia movies so far. And yes, i've read the books and love them.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

For a while there they said it would be Chronicles of Riddick: Dead Man Stalking


That's worse than Fast Five!!!


Then last they said it would be just Riddick


I'm still that Fast Five will be changed to Fast & Furious 5 at the last minute...that's what I call it; I will not say "Fast Five" when asking for my ticket

"Dead Man Stalking" sounds like a parody. Plain old "Riddick" would work fine.

"Fast Five" reminds me too much of the Furious Five from "Kung Fu Panda."

Who comes up with these names?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"Dead Man Stalking" sounds like a parody. Plain old "Riddick" would work fine.

"Fast Five" reminds me too much of the Furious Five from "Kung Fu Panda."

Who comes up with these names?

Hopefully people who have sense been fired


If they need a "gimmick" name they should have just used Fast & Furious: Fifth Gear.

[Monkey_Boy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Haven't seen it yet, but Fargo and No Country are around my Top 10 most of the time.

I'm a lover of absurd comedies, and they don't come anymore absurd than "Hudsucker"! It's just a crazy movie about a man fresh outta college who gets in over his head. I absolutely love Jennifer Jason Leigh's fast-talking reporter! And ya can't forget Bruce Campbell, the other old-fashioned-type reporter! In fact, every character has their own rhythm in their speech, and it just makes the movie sound like a glorious song! I laugh my behindus off every time I watch the thing, which is usually around the end of December since the movie takes place around New Year's.

First saw it on late-night cable, so I was truly surprised when it came to what Norville was talking about when he showed people a small piece of paper with a circle drawn on it and added, "Y'know? for kids!" The cover art (or poster art, whichever) actually displays what he's talking about, but I found it funnier when I was as clueless as the rest of the people in the movie. If ya can, try to see it without looking at the cover.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Monkey_Boy

I'm a lover of absurd comedies, and they don't come anymore absurd than "Hudsucker"! It's just a crazy movie about a man fresh outta college who gets in over his head. I absolutely love Jennifer Jason Leigh's fast-talking reporter! And ya can't forget Bruce Campbell, the other old-fashioned-type reporter! In fact, every character has their own rhythm in their speech, and it just makes the movie sound like a glorious song! I laugh my behindus off every time I watch the thing, which is usually around the end of December since the movie takes place around New Year's.

First saw it on late-night cable, so I was truly surprised when it came to what Norville was talking about when he showed people a small piece of paper with a circle drawn on it and added, "Y'know? for kids!" The cover art (or poster art, whichever) actually displays what he's talking about, but I found it funnier when I was as clueless as the rest of the people in the movie. If ya can, try to see it without looking at the cover.

I'll check it out if I get the chance.

[KilloWertz]

If they actually called the third Riddick "Dead Man Stalking", then they might as well have gone even worse and called it Chronicles of Riddick: Fear the Tea Cup.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Great read...that guy put some serious thought into that interpretation of the film...and I really like it

Glad you liked it.

[Marcus Wright]

Zombie Spiders.
I will stay short, if you are a zombi fan, this is a must see for you.
I havent had so much fan watching a zombi movie since I last saw Dawn of The Dead.
This is relatively cheap movie, but directing, acting and plot are first rate.


While its lots of fun, it also has lots of subplots and is actually a very serious philosophical movie about the value of life and what death actually is.

PQ and AQ are both solid 4/5

Overall - 4/5

P.S. Highly not recommended if you hate spiders or zombies.

[volcomsocal]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

I thought this was a very good movie. Sorry you didnt enjoy it. Remember the time the movie came out. What was its competition? You have to take all these things into consideration when it comes to the academy awards.

Well, it's greatest Oscar competition, in my opinion, was Scent of a Woman; a very good film.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Unforgiven - 1992

I saw this movie back in 92 or 93 or 94... I can't remember exactly. I don't remember anything about this movie, so I rented it.

For all the praise and Oscars that Unforgiven has gotten, I don't see it the same way. To me, it was an ok movie. I don't feel that Gene Hackman deserves an oscar for best supporting actor, and I don't feel that this movie deserves an oscar for best picture. I'm not saying that this movie is bad in any way. I just feel that it isn't a great movie. To me, it's a middle of the road movie that doesn't have a lot of drama or excitement to pull me in. There were some scenes that I really enjoyed, but they were few and far between. Maybe I'm not the biggest Western fan, but there have been a few Westerns out there that I've really like a lot.

The overall pace of the movie was a little slow at times, but that's probably due to Eastwood's directing style. It seems like all of his movies have a long, drawn out way of storytelling to them.

The PQ had a lot left to be desired for my taste... the day scenes were above average, but the night scenes had no crispness to them at all. At times I felt that I was watching the dvd version of Unforgiven.

AQ was pretty bad... but that's due to the fact that this blu-ray only received a 5.1 Dolby Digital treatment to it; same as the dvd version. It makes absolutely no sense to me why this blu-ray didn't at least have an LPCM track to it. After acclimating my ears to hi-def audio for the last year or so, when a non hi-def audio track pops up on a blu-ray, it really stands out.

PQ - 2.75/5
AQ - 1.5/5

Overall, I wasn't impressed with the movie, the PQ, or the AQ. The movie was just ok, the PQ was just ok, and the AQ was mediocre.

Overall - 2.5/5

Completely agree. I think it's embarassingly overrated.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That's true, Riddick is the better saga and should take priority.

If they make a third one, it should be called the "Reign of Riddick."

Originally Posted by Diesel

They ARE making a third

As for that title,

[Show spoiler]he's getting abandoned by the Necros on some craphole of a planet from the early details that were revealed...unless that changes.

I dont care what they call it, just get started.

[Show spoiler]I multi quoted, happy now?

[CZAR]

Robin Hood (2010) - Where do I begin? I dint know a great deal about Robin Hood but of course knew the character. I had heard mixed reviews for this film so I didnt know what to expect. I had a few issues with the film. This film was supposed to be taking seriously in a more dark fashion or atleast it seemed that the mood was more dark then not, however the humor they tried to include didnt work at all. It just didnt fit with the atmosphere of the film and came off forced and at the wrong time. Not to compare but a film like Prince of Persia which wasnt taken as serious so the humor worked very well in that film. This is what Robin Hood tried to do at times and failed.

The movie was way longer than it needed to be and sleepy at times. The stroy was ok but again it couldve been tightened up and the pacing wouldve been better. Overall it wasnt a bad film but it couldve been so much better and the fact that the film involved Ridley Scott & Russell Crowe I was very disappointed in the outcome as thhese guys wont let u down that often. I wouldnt recommend this film but again its not terrible just a letdown.

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

PQ - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

AQ - 5 stars (out of 5)



The Town - Finally got around to viewing this film and my anticipation was very high with all the great things I had heard about this film. I have to say Ben Affleck has made a complete 180 turn and has gotten his career back in full swing. Not many have been able to do this once they have gotten on the bad list or annoyed list if u will. Ben has shown to be a great director and even his acting isnt so bad and I thought he did a great job acting in this film.

As for the film itself, it was a great film and I loved every minute of it. I can now see some of the comparison people have made to Heat. Now I am not sure if this film is better than Heat or not but I can atleast see why those comparisons were used at times. This film is definitely one of the best films for 2010 and deserves a best picture nomination. I thought everything was was well done in the film and kudos to Affleck for starring and directing this great movie and glad it is in my collection. Very high recommendation.

Film Rating - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

PQ - 4 1/2 stars (ouf of 5)

AQ - 5 stars (out of 5)



The Disappearance of Alice Creed - I didnt realize that the chick in this film was Gemma Arterton. She looked different. Anyhow I was intrigued to see this film based off what it was about. I thought it was a pretty good film. Nice plot, nice pacing, and the film kept my attention. I liked the opening of the film and although we have seen kidnapping films before, this one played out a bit different then most. The film had a very good transfer especially for being an independant release. All in all I enjoyed the film and would recommend it to others.

Film Rating - 4 stars (out of 5)

PQ - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

AQ - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Remedial is a good word. I appreciate you bringing it back to my attention.

It looks as though we're having a "movie review family reunion" today.

I guess i'm gonna go see "Narnia" with the family now. Tried to convince the wife to let me and the boy go see True Grit separately, but her right thinking mind probably came to the right conclusion on that one. I just really don't like these Narnia movies so far. And yes, i've read the books and love them.

So, how was Narnia yesterday?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Hopefully people who have sense been fired


If they need a "gimmick" name they should have just used Fast & Furious: Fifth Gear.

Since.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Monkey_Boy

I'm a lover of absurd comedies, and they don't come anymore absurd than "Hudsucker"! .

Did you enjoy Intolerable Cruelty? The courtroom scenes killled me.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by killowertz

If they actually called the third Riddick "Dead Man Stalking", then they might as well have gone even worse and called it Chronicles of Riddick: Fear the Tea Cup.

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Glad you liked it.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I dont care what they call it, just get started.

[Show spoiler]I multi quoted, happy now?

Good point

[Show spoiler]Very

Originally Posted by CZAR

Robin Hood (2010) - Where do I begin? I dint know a great deal about Robin Hood but of course knew the character. I had heard mixed reviews for this film so I didnt know what to expect. I had a few issues with the film. This film was supposed to be taking seriously in a more dark fashion or atleast it seemed that the mood was more dark then not, however the humor they tried to include didnt work at all. It just didnt fit with the atmosphere of the film and came off forced and at the wrong time. Not to compare but a film like Prince of Persia which wasnt taken as serious so the humor worked very well in that film. This is what Robin Hood tried to do at times and failed.

The movie was way longer than it needed to be and sleepy at times. The stroy was ok but again it couldve been tightened up and the pacing wouldve been better. Overall it wasnt a bad film but it couldve been so much better and the fact that the film involved Ridley Scott & Russell Crowe I was very disappointed in the outcome as thhese guys wont let u down that often. I wouldnt recommend this film but again its not terrible just a letdown.

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

I gave it a 2/5, it was a huge letdown for me as I was highly anticipating it

Russel Crow was very good as Hood and the production design of the film was great....but that's pretty much it unfortunately.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Since.

You know what's sad...I corrected that same spelling error earlier yesterday in a post of mine

[SDon1969]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Zombie Spiders.
I will stay short, if you are a zombi fan, this is a must see for you.
I havent had so much fan watching a zombi movie since I last saw Dawn of The Dead.
This is relatively cheap movie, but directing, acting and plot are first rate.

Never heard of it, but sounds interesting. Amazon doesn't even list it...got any info on it?

[Lepidopterous]

Jim Carrey's Black Swan SNL skit

[Show spoiler]Brings back Ace Ventura tutu memories.

[Diesel]

I had an internet outage yesterday so I have two reviews to catch up on.

I wrote these last night:


The Twilight Saga: New Moon

• 2008 | PG-13 | 130 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Chris Weitz
  
  
• Starring: Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner, Robert Pattinson
  
  
• Drama | Fantasy | Romance

After seeing the first one a while back and thinking it was "meh" I didn't really have any interest in continuing to see the future films. But tonight while flipping around the channels I saw New Moon would be playing in about 15 minutes on Showtime.

The story focuses on Bella Swan (Stewart) trying to cope with her vampire love interest leaving town. The only way she can find to cope with it is by getting closer and closer with Jacob,

[Show spoiler]who is a werewolf. I don't remember if that was revealed in Twilight, so I tagged it.

The basic story is decent enough for this sort of film, but not as good or executed as well as I would have liked. The

[Show spoiler]visions of Edward when she had some form of adrenaline rush

were stupid; some of the dialog was quite bad; the movie seems to just meander along for most of its run time; her screams were annoying as hell; interactions between some of the characters was awkward; and I just don't buy Stewart and Pattinson as "deeply in love" in the slightest. And I still don't like the sparkling in the sunlight thing, it's just....strange.

I actually found myself mildly enjoying a good portion of the film. The best part was by far the

[Show spoiler]wolf smackdown between Jacob and one of his buddies which was actually very cool...I mean its two giant wolves beating the crap out of each other, how can that not be awesome regardless of what movie it is in? Though it was short because it was just a "scuffle" and not an actual brawl.

The acting was passable for most of the main characters with the exception of Stewart and Pattinson.

Stewart is like a board with breasts and hair in these two movies. Word is that she can really act in at least one other movie, shame she doesn't do that here. She's just SOOOOO dull, stiff, awkward, etc.

Pattinson is like a board with no breasts
Squid mentioned that he watched....some movie...with him lately and it turns out he can actually act as well. For him as well, shame he doesn't do that here. The only other thing I've seen him in is the 4th Harry Potter and he wasn't in that much and wasn't all that good, but even his performance there was MUCH better than what he brings to these films. I mean, he is truly horrible in these movies. Worse than Stewart in my opinion.

It also doesn't help that the two have ZERO chemistry between them for the screen and their scenes together are easily the worst of the film because of both being so bad and having bogus/awkward dialog to interact with.

The best performance (which admittedly isn't saying that much, but still) is from the Lautner guy. Of the "big three" he had by far the least crappy dialog, was never awkward or pull you out of the movie bad. He actually did a solid job for what he had to work with I thought. I also thought he actually had some on screen chemistry with the board (the one with breasts, not the shiny one).

So just like the first one (which I really don't remember everything about, just the general stuff and some specifics) not very good, but it isn't as bad as people make it out to be...but it is my experience that movies never are as awful as the internet consensus makes them out to be.

Would I watch it again? Only to possibly reassess my score one day and only if I caught it playing on television someday like I did tonight.

I hear the third film is better than the first two, even from people who didn't really care for the first two, so I'm willing to give it a shot eventually.


Rating - 2.5/5


____________________


 
The Terminal

• 2004 | PG-13 | 128 Minutes
  
  
• Director: Steven Spielberg
  
  
• Starring: Tom Hanks, Catherine Zeta-Jones
  
  
• Comedy | Drama | Romance

I saw this movie about six years ago and enjoyed it. But after all that time I really didn't remember much about it besides that it was about Tom Hanks being stuck in an airport.

Tom Hanks plays Victor who is on his way to New York but gets detained at the airport because his country's government is overthrown and he is a citizen of nowhere..."unacceptable." In his time here he adjusts to his situation, forms bonds with employees at the airport and even finds a special someone (Zeta-Jones).

The story is quite simple, and it works incredibly well. The balance between drama and comedy is absolutely perfect. There is never a portion of the film that is overly serious or a portion that is comedic when it feels inappropriate. Everything clicks into place and runs incredibly smoothly for the entire duration of the film.

The situations that Victor is placed into and his interactions with the characters are all executed well and by the end

[Show spoiler]when he is leaving the airport and all the people in the airport are following him to the door you are (or at least I was) about him finally getting into New York to get the signature for his late father.

Regarding the comedy...it is absolutely hilarious. I had to pause the movie several times because I couldn't stop laughing and was not hearing what was being said next

Tom Hanks is fantastic as Victor. I could elaborate on that but...that sums it up. He was fantastic.

I really enjoy everyone in the movie actually. From the grumpy janitor to incredible attractive stewardess, everyone single one of the major supporting characters (did I just create a new category? ) is interesting and well played during the dramatic moments and the comedic moments. I don't have a single complaint about any of them.

And what makes them even better is that they all work very well with Hanks on screen.

I really have no real complaints about this movie that I can think of. Which is rare because there are things that I dislike about my favorite movies; so I love it when a film comes along and I don't have a single problem with it no matter if its tiny or significant. But it is one of those movies that for some reason does not get a 5/5, even with me having no problems with the film.

Rating - 4.75/5