The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

What?

What?!

WHAT?!!

WHAT?!!!!!

Ahem...excuse my outburst...

[Show spoiler]

Far be it for me to criticize your criticism, for it is rather valid, but I respectfully disagree, as I personally found the story and characters of "Training Day" rather engaging.

I think I just loved the way that Denzel's character was so loose and neurotic, in direct contrast to his new partner. That in itself is a thrilling premise imo.

Good premise? Yes. But it didn't work in practice for me unfortunately

I gave it a 4/5 in the end. I think it dragged at some spots, so I can see how it's uninteresting. Still...

"King Kong ain't got s**t on me!!!"

[Show spoiler]That's what I did when he said it

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

thanks Diesel!

my birthday has just been ruined

he was... fine...? do you know what talent is you alien killin' fool?! as i said in my review, easily his best performance that i've seen of his. Czar tells me that he's better in Malcolm X, but we'll see. if anything, he's probably more hot headed and violent here which may stand out more. but again, not sure since i haven't seen Malcolm X.

Have you seen the one I mentioned (American Gangster). I can't keep track of every movie we have all seen so I have to ask
I thought he was much better in that one. His calm, cool,

[Show spoiler]SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD

demeanor in that one is MUCH better acted and more jarring imo.

i have actually seen all the other nominees that year (wow. that surprises me even lol) and Denzel definitely deserved it. i think Crowe would have been in second place, but it's been awhile since i've seen A Beautiful Mind. but Denzel definitely deserved the award imo

[Show spoiler]

see, i thought the same thing for a very long time. and while my eyes did roll (almost out of my effin head when i heard it the first five times) i realized, that it's very much like his character to say it. remember: he's as egotistical as they come. it's not a bad line, because it fits his character. i believe we're supposed to have that reaction because it's like, "wtf. who does this guy think he is?" and you think, "wow. this guy has seriously lost it" by making such a stupid, obnoxious statement. so while it is dumb in a sense, it fits the character well.

Good point. But...even if it does indeed fit the character it's still lame

you mean the whole other character that was on screen for longer than 5 minutes, in Ethan Hawke? i agree here. although, as much as i dislike Hawke, this is easily his best role (not saying a whole lot looking at his career).

Yea, that one guy

what about the Eva Mendes bedroom scene?!

It has to last longer than 1 second to be a highlight

i was expecting to finally see a 2 or less from you. and after your massacre of Training Day i see... a 2.25/5? come on dammit! rent something terrible! i wanna see a 1/5 before the month is up! and it better not be for The Box!

I gave Psycho a 1/5 remember? Of course, it wasn't because it was a bad movie it was because I wasn't feeling it....so I guess your point still stands

The only other movie I can think of right away that I gave a 1/5 was The Losers months back. I don't give out under a 2/5 that often.

you're damn right you will

old habits die hard

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

I understand your score.
I would give it 3.25/5

Was it great? By no means. It wasnt.
Did I enjoy it?
To some extent, although not absolutely.

It was like one of these thrillers which get aired over the air on TV.

In any case, I didnt feel like I wasted my time.

I thought about going 3.25/5 near the end of the film. But once it ended and I thought more about it I decided that was WAY to high for me.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well I checked out...

The Fighter

[Show spoiler]I heavily enjoyed it, but it wasn't without a lot of flaws.

I was very on this one when I saw the trailer, it didn't look bad, it looked like typical Oscar bait. I decided to watch it just because of the fact it came out on a Wednesday (2-4-1 Wednesdays FTW!!!) and because of it's suspected hype.

Christian Bale is amazing in here, Oscar in the bag I say. There is something just very hypnotising in his preformance. It such a same that the person he acts against is Mark Wahlberg as Mark Wahlberg, he's not bad, he just doesn't seem to be trying all that much. Most the other side cast acting is either great or passable.

The story and script are both superb, it seems to be able to fluctuate with both funny and serious moments (sometimes it's just a little bit too comical at parts but ehh, I laughed so complain is pretty pointless). I will admit, it took me a while to get hooked to the film, but when it finally did I was very hooked.

My main problem comes from Amy Adams though, her relationship with Mark Wahlberg is so fake, like a lot of stuff in the film, it struggles too in trance you into the film. Amy Adams does not deserve that Oscar nod (Melissa Leo is fantastic though) she's an infuriating character, who is hard to back up. You know she's right and has a point, yet so she's so snarly about it, and up tight that you really wish Mark Wahlberg would stop standing there next to her like a dummy while she controls him with her hand up his ass.

Plus, did anyone notice that weird smug thing that kept appearing at the top of the screen in scenes, annoying as hell

I was tattering into 8.5 territory, but then there was a boxing scene (2nd too last one) and I just realised how much I was rooting for this character, and how much I wanted him to succeed. But Amy Adams guys I don't care how see through that bra was, she was annoying.

8/10

Glad you enjoyed it overall, even with the problems you had with it.

I didn't have any issues with it as far as I remember and gave it a 5/5.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i was expecting to finally see a 2 or less from you. and after your massacre of Training Day i see... a 2.25/5? come on dammit! rent something terrible! i wanna see a 1/5 before the month is up! and it better not be for The Box!

"Mega Shark vs Giant Octopuss," "Lawnmower Man 2," or any number of Uwe Boll films come reccomended as terrible 1/5-worthy films.

That reminds me...dang it, I rented the original "Toolbox Murders" a few weeks ago and forgot to post a review here about it.

Despite a rather interesting scene in a bathtub (), that movie was horrid. Moreso than the remake. I graded the original a 1.5/5.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"Mega Shark vs Giant Octopuss,"

Seen it


TCEM; rivals even the mighty 10,000 B.C.

[Show spoiler]0/5 in reality of course; I would like to give it a 1/5 for cool Shark/Octopus fights...but the same shots were used so many times I just can't do it.

[iam1bearcat]

Let Me In [109 minutes]

Year: 2010
Director: Matt Reeves
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Richard Jenkins

this... this is not a horror film.

i was very concerned when i blind bought Let Me In. some part of me said i would enjoy it, and another part of me was worried that this was going to be a standard, cliche riddled Americanized horror film. now, i have never seen Let the Right One In, so i had nothing to compare this to. so i went in knowing very little about this film. all i really knew was that it was slower paced and was about

[Show spoiler]vampires

...and i'm not even sure if that should be in spoiler tags

i ended up LOVING Let Me In because of the relationship dynamic between Owen and Abby

the story is about a young girl who moves to a new city and makes friends with a lonely boy named Owen who is an outcast at school. and while Abby is also an outcast in a much different way, she contains a deep well of strength that she teaches Owen to have as he grows as a person. honestly, the most memorable and touching scenes i will take away from Let Me In are the scenes between Abby and Owen on the playground. beautiful lighting, wonderful acting, and a haunting and somber score make it a magical setting that few films achieve. i could go on and on but will sum it up with saying this: the relationship of two outsiders bonding and finding strength together is one of my favorite cinematic relationships ever. made even more touching by the sheer innocence of them being 12 and bonding over the simplest and most mundane things, while also connecting on an emotional level that few achieve. you really feel that these two are connected in a sense and it's made all the more believeable by the awesome job Kodi and Chloe do.

speaking of which, these two are gonna be megastars one day. Chloe easily is the better of the two as she has extreme talent and will be a force to be reckoned with for years to come - if she so chooses. but Kodi is no slouch either. the only downside for Kodi is he is playing a role very similar to his role in The Road, so i haven't seen much range from him, but he is a gifted actor and will improve overtime - again, if he so chooses.

meanwhile, the individual merits of Let Me In are outstanding as well. the film has a very lonely, desolate feel and atmosphere to it, which never lets up. Abby and Owen are two lonely children and the film expresses this well in obvious and not so obvious ways.

lighting, directing, writing and acting are all massive plusses

are there some eerie, extremely tense, scary scenes? yes. but not a whole lot. honestly, the film reminded me a lot of Antichrist with looking eerie, creepy and haunting, but not necessarily being a scary / horror film. people expecting a straight up generic horror film will be left incredibly angry and bored. sucks to be them, but i loved the film for what Reeves represented, and definitely makes me want to see Let the Right One In sooner than later.

*** no real complaints about the film. maybe a few questionable pacing and structuring issues, but nothing severe, and the 109 minutes flew by.

EDIT: for those who have seen it, the only laughable, oddly illogical question i had was the school setting:

[Show spoiler]since when are 12 year-olds in class with apparently 16-17 year olds? and what 12 year olds have swimming classes and weight lifting?!

although since this is a remake of a Swedish film, maybe they do those things at that age in Swedish schools, but i know most U.S. schools don't do this until much, much later.

very, very much so recommended

PQ: 4/5 a lot of dark scenes of course, but i love the use of orange, blues and whites in numerous scenes
AQ: 4/5 a very quiet soundtrack with a lot of quiet dialogue, so my volume was quiet high and not a lot of loud scenes, but when they arrive, you know they're there.

4/5 - loved it

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Out of Sight [117 minutes]
[spoiler]
Year: 1998
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: George Clooney, Ving Rhames, Jennifer Lopez, Steven Zahn, Don Cheadle, and Catherine Keener

another blind buy. another major success

woke up at 5:05 this morning to get ready to head to Cincinnati this week, and then i looked outside... and well... that certainly isn't happening with this massive blizzard the mid-west and east coast is getting, so here i am. awake at 5 and with nowhere to go. so, might as well watch a bunch of yesterday's blind buys right?

apparently i'm a big Steven Soderbergh fan because i've pretty much loved everything that he directs, that i've seen. and being a long time George Clooney fan helped as well. honestly, i don't think i've seen Clooney in a film i've disliked. so this "tag team" (again) succeeded with me.

a very fun, very upbeat crime film that doesn't take itself too seriously and does a terrific job at entertaining. some very, very scenes along with a sprinkling of "whoa..." serious scenes that work well together and don't feel out of place. Out of Sight really just feels like it is its own entity and i'm sure it was a blast to make.

being made in 1998, it really doesn't feel like that. Clooney was great. Lopez was actually good and tolerable. Steve Zahn was excellent and i always enjoy him in films as he is incredibly funny. and Cheadle and Rhames were also used greatly here to make the film have a more "heavier" and serious feel to it that mixed well with Clooney's comedic timing and Soderbergh's somewhat simple, but excellent directing.

for $14.99 this was well worth the purchase price and i'm glad Killowertz recommended it to me, which was what made me interested in the film (alongside the Clooney / Soderbergh team up again)

is it the best made film ever? no. but i wasn't expecting that. but as far as fun, good crime films go with a great cast? can't do much better than Out of Sight.

a fun, fresh flick. at 117 minutes it may be a bit bloated, but i never once was bored or wishing it would end and i can see myself enjoying this more and more with future viewings. i can see me watching this again this weekend with some friends because i'm sure it's a great film to watch with friends (watched it this morning with a half asleep gf ).

PQ: 4/5 i thought it looked fantastic. bright colors and some great detail!
AQ: 4/5 some may not feel it's a 4/5, but i was impressed and never had an issue with sound quality from the score to dialogue to shoot outs. it was all well maintained.

4/5 - really like it

I'm glad you really enjoyed it and you're welcome.

While I would obviously give it a 5/5, I thought your review was pretty good. I'm also glad to hear that Universal did pretty good with the Blu-ray release. According to reviews I read for the HD-DVD, it was supposed to have pretty good PQ, so I was hoping they didn't somehow screw up the Blu-ray release.

Really looking forward to watching my copy soon. I haven't seen Out of Sight in years, which is surprising given how much I love the film.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I'm glad you really enjoyed it and you're welcome.

While I would obviously give it a 5/5, I thought your review was pretty good. I'm also glad to hear that Universal did pretty good with the Blu-ray release. According to reviews I read for the HD-DVD, it was supposed to have pretty good PQ, so I was hoping they didn't somehow screw up the Blu-ray release.

Really looking forward to watching my copy soon. I haven't seen Out of Sight in years, which is surprising given how much I love the film.

i can see my score going up with more viewings. i'm sure there was a lot of little stuff i missed. but it was a lot of little stuff i loved, like how Jack's car was

[Show spoiler]essentially a little red piece of crap

i laughed hard at that. and Zahn's mustache

a great, fun flick all around. i can see why you enjoy it so much

[dag]

I love this thread.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i can see my score going up with more viewings. i'm sure there was a lot of little stuff i missed. but it was a lot of little stuff i loved, like how Jack's car was

[Show spoiler]essentially a little red piece of crap

i laughed hard at that. and Zahn's mustache

a great, fun flick all around. i can see why you enjoy it so much

Even though I watched this around 8 times (a lot for me) back in the day, I completely forgot about what you said in your spoiler.

I'm sure you enjoyed

[Show spoiler]Jennifer Lopez in her Dolphins jersey

.

Once I watch my copy, I can probably have a better discussion about the movie

[Show spoiler]including the flashbacks mixed in with the rest of the movie

since it's been quite a while since I last saw it.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Seen it


TCEM; rivals even the mighty 10,000 B.C.

[Show spoiler]0/5 in reality of course; I would like to give it a 1/5 for cool Shark/Octopus fights...but the same shots were used so many times I just can't do it.

Ah yes, I remember the hack 'n slash editing. And the passionless shakey-cam. And the fakest-looking SFX on the planet.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Let Me In [109 minutes]

[Show spoiler]
Year: 2010
Director: Matt Reeves
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Richard Jenkins

this... this is not a horror film.

i was very concerned when i blind bought Let Me In. some part of me said i would enjoy it, and another part of me was worried that this was going to be a standard, cliche riddled Americanized horror film. now, i have never seen Let the Right One In, so i had nothing to compare this to. so i went in knowing very little about this film. all i really knew was that it was slower paced and was about

[Show spoiler]vampires

...and i'm not even sure if that should be in spoiler tags

i ended up LOVING Let Me In because of the relationship dynamic between Owen and Abby

the story is about a young girl who moves to a new city and makes friends with a lonely boy named Owen who is an outcast at school. and while Abby is also an outcast in a much different way, she contains a deep well of strength that she teaches Owen to have as he grows as a person. honestly, the most memorable and touching scenes i will take away from Let Me In are the scenes between Abby and Owen on the playground. beautiful lighting, wonderful acting, and a haunting and somber score make it a magical setting that few films achieve. i could go on and on but will sum it up with saying this: the relationship of two outsiders bonding and finding strength together is one of my favorite cinematic relationships ever. made even more touching by the sheer innocence of them being 12 and bonding over the simplest and most mundane things, while also connecting on an emotional level that few achieve. you really feel that these two are connected in a sense and it's made all the more believeable by the awesome job Kodi and Chloe do.

speaking of which, these two are gonna be megastars one day. Chloe easily is the better of the two as she has extreme talent and will be a force to be reckoned with for years to come - if she so chooses. but Kodi is no slouch either. the only downside for Kodi is he is playing a role very similar to his role in The Road, so i haven't seen much range from him, but he is a gifted actor and will improve overtime - again, if he so chooses.

meanwhile, the individual merits of Let Me In are outstanding as well. the film has a very lonely, desolate feel and atmosphere to it, which never lets up. Abby and Owen are two lonely children and the film expresses this well in obvious and not so obvious ways.

lighting, directing, writing and acting are all massive plusses

are there some eerie, extremely tense, scary scenes? yes. but not a whole lot. honestly, the film reminded me a lot of Antichrist with looking eerie, creepy and haunting, but not necessarily being a scary / horror film. people expecting a straight up generic horror film will be left incredibly angry and bored. sucks to be them, but i loved the film for what Reeves represented, and definitely makes me want to see Let the Right One In sooner than later.

*** no real complaints about the film. maybe a few questionable pacing and structuring issues, but nothing severe, and the 109 minutes flew by.

EDIT: for those who have seen it, the only laughable, oddly illogical question i had was the school setting:

[Show spoiler]since when are 12 year-olds in class with apparently 16-17 year olds? and what 12 year olds have swimming classes and weight lifting?!

although since this is a remake of a Swedish film, maybe they do those things at that age in Swedish schools, but i know most U.S. schools don't do this until much, much later.

very, very much so recommended

PQ: 4/5 a lot of dark scenes of course, but i love the use of orange, blues and whites in numerous scenes
AQ: 4/5 a very quiet soundtrack with a lot of quiet dialogue, so my volume was quiet high and not a lot of loud scenes, but when they arrive, you know they're there.

4/5 - loved it

Sounds similar to the original. I definitely will plan on renting this here remake...

[Steve46]

The Fighter

Directed by David O. Russell
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
115 minutes

The Fighter is a bit of a mess and I am not sure what the movie is trying to be. The soundtrack included a lot of good songs, including Saints by The Breeders, but all the songs seemed out of place and didn't add to the feel of the movie.

Wahlberg's performance was OK. He was reasonably convincing physically. He did seem remarkably meek though for a man who makes his living on the strength of believing in himself. Would such a character really be utterly dominated by his mother, brother and later by his girlfriend?

Bale gave the best performance in the movie as the eccentric Dicky. His performance is the second best by the supporting actor nominees of those that I have seen. But I didn't buy the change he underwent during the movie and his decision to visit Charlene and O'Keefe didn't ring true at all.

I like Amy Adams, but there's no way she wins an Oscar for this performance. It's not that she did it badly; she was convincing. It's just that the role was too small and insignificant to justify that kind of recognition. She was stunning in Doubt and didn't win for that.

Leo and the sisters were simply annoying. Just a disgusting family and painful to watch. Every scene involving that group was hard to bear.

There are only so many things you can do with a boxing movie. Rocky is infinitely superior and Million Dollar Baby is a better story with stronger acting.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I think the critical acclaim is over the top. This won't be remembered long.

Overall 3.75/5

[Steve46]

127 Hours

Directed by Danny Boyle
Starring James Franco
94 minutes

Like Cast Away and I Am Legend, 127 Hours relies mainly on the performance of one actor. I tend to enjoy stories like that for some reason.

The tale begins with some very annoying music and I was glad when that part was over. We then get an idea of Aron Ralston's character. He obviously thinks he's immortal and in no danger despite the risks he takes.

He regularly explores canyons and caves on his own without telling anyone where he's going,

[Show spoiler]but this time it backfires and he's trapped in a crevice by a loose boulder.

The majority of the story takes place

[Show spoiler]with Ralston trapped and we see how he deals with the problem. He tries everything he can think of to escape and uses a camcorder to record his thoughts in case he doesn't make it out alive. There are also a series of flashbacks and imagined events. The title suggests that he'll escape in 127 hours, so the story is really about how he does it.

Once the main story begins, I enjoyed Franco's performance. It won't win any awards, but he did a decent job. I like stories that deal with what happens in our minds and this certainly made me think about what I would do in that situation.

Danny Boyle certainly challenges himself by working in a wide range of genres. I'm glad I saw this one and will eventually own it.

Overall 4/5

[Steve46]

True Grit (2010)

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin
110 minutes

I don't like remakes unless they bring something new to the table. This one works for the most part.

The only thing that I can remember about the original version of True Grit is that it was my favorite John Wayne performance (not hard) and the movie was stolen by Kim Darby as Mattie Ross. It was Wayne's only Oscar win.

I was conflicted about whether to see this. With 10 Oscar nominations including best picture, it should be decent? I like the directors and the main actors. Westerns generally bore me and it's a remake.

Bridges finally got his Oscar win last year. This is a stronger performance, but he won't win two years running; especially with stronger competition this year. I thought he played the part of Rooster Cogburn well.

Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross did a great job. Kim Darby was in her 20s when she played the role in the original, but Steinfeld was 13 when this was filmed. She has a good chance at winning the best supporting actress Oscar due to her age and it was certainly a good performance, but how many awards are given to the best role rather than the best actor? Any competent actress would have gained recognition because it's such a great role. Melissa Leo seems to be the favorite, but this performance was better in my eyes.

Matt Damon was almost unrecognizable in his role as LaBoeuf, the Texas ranger. I thought the three worked well together.

There were a few humorous moments, but this isn't a typical Coens movie. They play it pretty straight. The dialogue is excellent and Roger Deakins deserves his nod for best cinematography. While I enjoyed it, I think it would be sad if this won best picture. It's not the best thing I have seen from this year's nominations and I don't see why it was nominated in 10 categories.

Worth seeing and worth owning, but nothing special.

Overall 4/5

[Steve46]

The King's Speech

Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, , Guy Pearce, Derek Jacobi
118 minutes

I've seen four of the nominations for best picture in the past three days and this is easily the most boring premise of the group. It's also easily the best film.

Historical dramas generally bore me. I'm not interested in the royal family, despite living in the UK for the first 43 years of my life. I certainly have no love for them at all.

Tom Hooper directed the excellent The Damned United, but this is even better. He chose to shoot most of the film in dark rooms rather than focus on the potential splendor offered by Buckingham Palace. Apart from a scene inside Westminster Abbey, most of the rooms are drab. Logue's office is heavily featured. This story is character-driven and works because of the acting rather than the setting.

Colin Firth gives a brilliant performance as King George VI, although he isn't king when the film begins. We see him stumble over an early speech in the 1920s and his wife, Queen Elizabeth (Carter), seeks a speech therapist who can help him overcome his impediment.

Doesn't that sound boring?

She finds Lionel Logue (Rush) who has a practice in London's famous Harley Street and forces her husband to see him. Rush is great as the Australian Logue and supplies much of the humor in the film. The two enter into a doctor/patient relationship and eventually become friends.

As the title suggests, George becomes king by the end of the film. England is about to declare war on Hitler's Germany. Millions of people around the world will be listening to the king's radio broadcast and he has to appear to be a strong and effective leader.

If I had read that premise without knowing anything else about the story, there's no way you could have convinced me I would care about the characters or the outcome. But the quality of the acting overcomes all that and I did end up caring about a historical speech delivered by a monarch in whom I had zero interest. That says something about the power of this film.

Firth, Carter, Rush and Jacobi all give strong performances. Of the films I have seen, Firth should be a lock for best actor. He even has to overcome a disability and the Academy usually laps that up. He'll deserve it if he wins though. Rush was an important part of the mix and his role is almost as big as Firth's. I prefer his performance to Christian Bale's fine effort in The Fighter. Carter has almost zero chance of winning, but gave her strongest performance to date.

I haven't seen Black Swan (Saturday morning) or The Social Network (ordered on Blu-ray) yet, but I would be shocked if either is better than the King's Speech. With 12 nominations, it leads the Oscar field. Will it win? It will be tough as the cast is largely British and the majority of the Academy will connect more strongly with American films.

Overall 4.75/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Fighter

[Show spoiler]
Directed by David O. Russell
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
115 minutes

The Fighter is a bit of a mess and I am not sure what the movie is trying to be.

[Show spoiler]The soundtrack included a lot of good songs, including Saints by The Breeders, but all the songs seemed out of place and didn't add to the feel of the movie.

Wahlberg's performance was OK. He was reasonably convincing physically. He did seem remarkably meek though for a man who makes his living on the strength of believing in himself. Would such a character really be utterly dominated by his mother, brother and later by his girlfriend?

Bale gave the best performance in the movie as the eccentric Dicky. His performance is the second best by the supporting actor nominees of those that I have seen. But I didn't buy the change he underwent during the movie and his decision to visit Charlene and O'Keefe didn't ring true at all.

I like Amy Adams, but there's no way she wins an Oscar for this performance. It's not that she did it badly; she was convincing. It's just that the role was too small and insignificant to justify that kind of recognition. She was stunning in Doubt and didn't win for that.

Leo and the sisters were simply annoying. Just a disgusting family and painful to watch. Every scene involving that group was hard to bear.

There are only so many things you can do with a boxing movie. Rocky is infinitely superior and Million Dollar Baby is a better story with stronger acting.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I think the critical acclaim is over the top. This won't be remembered long.

Overall 3.75/5

What? After all that hype squiddy threw my way...

I don't remember what everybody's score is for this one, but they've generally been positive. I'll still be going in with...moderate...expectations...

Originally Posted by Steve46

127 Hours

[Show spoiler]
Directed by Danny Boyle
Starring James Franco
94 minutes

Like Cast Away and I Am Legend, 127 Hours relies mainly on the performance of one actor. I tend to enjoy stories like that for some reason.

The tale begins with some very annoying music and I was glad when that part was over. We then get an idea of Aron Ralston's character. He obviously thinks he's immortal and in no danger despite the risks he takes.

He regularly explores canyons and caves on his own without telling anyone where he's going,

[Show spoiler]but this time it backfires and he's trapped in a crevice by a loose boulder.

The majority of the story takes place

[Show spoiler]with Ralston trapped and we see how he deals with the problem. He tries everything he can think of to escape and uses a camcorder to record his thoughts in case he doesn't make it out alive. There are also a series of flashbacks and imagined events. The title suggests that he'll escape in 127 hours, so the story is really about how he does it.

Once the main story begins, I enjoyed Franco's performance. It won't win any awards, but he did a decent job. I like stories that deal with what happens in our minds and this certainly made me think about what I would do in that situation.

Danny Boyle certainly challenges himself by working in a wide range of genres. I'm glad I saw this one and will eventually own it.

Overall 4/5

Sounds great boss.

Originally Posted by Steve46

True Grit (2010)

[Show spoiler]
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin
110 minutes

I don't like remakes unless they bring something new to the table. This one works for the most part.

The only thing that I can remember about the original version of True Grit is that it was my favorite John Wayne performance (not hard) and the movie was stolen by Kim Darby as Mattie Ross. It was Wayne's only Oscar win.

I was conflicted about whether to see this. With 10 Oscar nominations including best picture, it should be decent? I like the directors and the main actors. Westerns generally bore me and it's a remake.

Bridges finally got his Oscar win last year. This is a stronger performance, but he won't win two years running; especially with stronger competition this year. I thought he played the part of Rooster Cogburn well.

Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross did a great job. Kim Darby was in her 20s when she played the role in the original, but Steinfeld was 13 when this was filmed. She has a good chance at winning the best supporting actress Oscar due to her age and it was certainly a good performance, but how many awards are given to the best role rather than the best actor? Any competent actress would have gained recognition because it's such a great role. Melissa Leo seems to be the favorite, but this performance was better in my eyes.

Matt Damon was almost unrecognizable in his role as LaBoeuf, the Texas ranger. I thought the three worked well together.

There were a few humorous moments, but this isn't a typical Coens movie. They play it pretty straight. The dialogue is excellent and Roger Deakins deserved his nod for best cinematography. While I enjoyed it, I think it would be sad if this won best picture. It's not the best thing I have seen from this year's nominations and I don't see why it was nominated in 10 categories.

Worth seeing and worth owning, but nothing special.

Overall 4/5

I have the same expectations; don't like westerns too much, but I don't mind the Coen Bros or the actors. This might be one western I'll enjoy...

Still haven't seen the original.

Originally Posted by Steve46

The King's Speech

[Show spoiler]
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, , Guy Pearce, Derek Jacobi
118 minutes

I've seen four of the nominations for best picture in the past three days and this is easily the most boring premise of the group. It's also easily the best film.

Historical dramas generally bore me. I'm not interested in the royal family, despite living in the UK for the first 43 years of my life. I certainly have no love for them at all.

Tom Hooper directed the excellent The Damned United, but this is even better. He chose to shoot most of the film in dark rooms rather than focus on the potential splendor offered by Buckingham Palace. Apart from a scene inside Westminster Abbey, most of the rooms are drab. Logue's office is heavily featured. This story is character-driven and works because of the acting rather than the setting.

Colin Firth gives a brilliant performance as King George VI, although he isn't king when the film begins. We see him stumble over an early speech in the 1920s and his wife, Queen Elizabeth (Carter), seeks a speech therapist who can help him overcome his impediment.

Doesn't that sound boring?

She finds Lionel Logue (Rush) who has a practice in London's famous Harley Street and forces her husband to see him. Rush is great as the Australian Logue and supplies much of the humor in the film. The two enter into a doctor/patient relationship and eventually become friends.

As the title suggests, George becomes king by the end of the film. England is about to declare war on Hitler's Germany. Millions of people around the world will be listening to the king's radio broadcast and he has to appear to be a strong and effective leader.

If I had read that premise without knowing anything else about the story, there's no way you could have convinced me I would care about the characters or the outcome. But the quality of the acting overcomes all that and I did end up caring about a historical speech delivered by a monarch in whom I had zero interest. That says something about the power of this film.

Firth, Carter, Rush and Jacobi all give strong performances. Of the films I have seen, Firth should be a lock for best actor. He even has to overcome a disability and the Academy usually laps that up. He'll deserve it if he wins though. Rush was an important part of the mix and his role is almost as big as Firth's. I prefer his performance to Christian Bale's fine effort in The Fighter. Carter has almost zero chance of winning, but gave her strongest performance to date.

I haven't seen Black Swan (Saturday morning) or The Social Network (ordered on Blu-ray) yet, but I would be shocked if either is better than the King's Speech. With 12 nominations, it leads the Oscar field. Will it win? It will be tough as the cast is largely British and the majority of the Academy will connect more strongly with American films.

Overall 4.75/5

Sounds great boss.

Excellent series of reviews; it's been insightful.

Incidentally, I put all these movies on my rent list.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

What? After all that hype squiddy threw my way...

I don't remember what everybody's score is for this one, but they've generally been positive. I'll still be going in with...moderate...expectations...



Sounds great boss.



I have the same expectations; don't like westerns too much, but I don't mind the Coen Bros or the actors. This might be one western I'll enjoy...

Still haven't seen the original.



Sounds great boss.

Excellent series of reviews; it's been insightful.

Incidentally, I put all these movies on my rent list.

All four have things to like about them. Definitely worth rentals, if only to go into the Oscars with a clear idea of who you're rooting for.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Training Day

[Show spoiler]

• 2001 | R | 122 Minutes
  
  
• Director:Antoine Fuqua
  
  
• Starring: Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke
  
  
• Crime | Drama | Thriller
  
  
• First Time Viewing

Short one.

I did not like it.

The story wasn't interesting, the characters weren't interesting, the movie wasn't interesting.

Denzel won an Oscar for this performance? Really?
He was fine, but Best Actor Academy Award? No way. Of course, I haven't seen the other nominated performances from that year, so maybe they sucked and okay won out (I do want to see Ali and A Beautiful Mind at some point).
Also, my eyes just about rolled completely around when he said the King Kong line
He was much better in American Gangster than he was here.

Everyone else was

There honestly wasn't a single "highlight" to the movie for me at all....except for Terry Crews who I think is awesome even when he shows up and never says a word in this movie

An incredibly forgettable movie.


Rating - 2.25/5

I want my two hours of my life back.


Edit: I did a search through the thread for reviews of this movie just now....looks like I'll get some flack for this one

Edit 2: Reading down a few posts from Bearcat's review of it is Squid telling people to see Triangle...somethings never change

Well it definitely isnt as bad as u say but its also not as great as others say. I think its a good film and Denzel was good as usual but its far from his best performance. It was definitely an interesting film though. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

thanks Diesel! he was... fine...? do you know what talent is you alien killin' fool?! as i said in my review, easily his best performance that i've seen of his. Czar tells me that he's better in Malcolm X, but we'll see. if anything, he's probably more hot headed and violent here which may stand out more. but again, not sure since i haven't seen Malcolm X.

Oh no doubt man. He killed it with Malcolm X. Its no contest in my book! Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Let Me In [109 minutes]

[Show spoiler]Year: 2010
Director: Matt Reeves
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Richard Jenkins

this... this is not a horror film.

i was very concerned when i blind bought Let Me In. some part of me said i would enjoy it, and another part of me was worried that this was going to be a standard, cliche riddled Americanized horror film. now, i have never seen Let the Right One In, so i had nothing to compare this to. so i went in knowing very little about this film. all i really knew was that it was slower paced and was about

[Show spoiler]vampires

...and i'm not even sure if that should be in spoiler tags

i ended up LOVING Let Me In because of the relationship dynamic between Owen and Abby

the story is about a young girl who moves to a new city and makes friends with a lonely boy named Owen who is an outcast at school. and while Abby is also an outcast in a much different way, she contains a deep well of strength that she teaches Owen to have as he grows as a person. honestly, the most memorable and touching scenes i will take away from Let Me In are the scenes between Abby and Owen on the playground. beautiful lighting, wonderful acting, and a haunting and somber score make it a magical setting that few films achieve. i could go on and on but will sum it up with saying this: the relationship of two outsiders bonding and finding strength together is one of my favorite cinematic relationships ever. made even more touching by the sheer innocence of them being 12 and bonding over the simplest and most mundane things, while also connecting on an emotional level that few achieve. you really feel that these two are connected in a sense and it's made all the more believeable by the awesome job Kodi and Chloe do.

speaking of which, these two are gonna be megastars one day. Chloe easily is the better of the two as she has extreme talent and will be a force to be reckoned with for years to come - if she so chooses. but Kodi is no slouch either. the only downside for Kodi is he is playing a role very similar to his role in The Road, so i haven't seen much range from him, but he is a gifted actor and will improve overtime - again, if he so chooses.

meanwhile, the individual merits of Let Me In are outstanding as well. the film has a very lonely, desolate feel and atmosphere to it, which never lets up. Abby and Owen are two lonely children and the film expresses this well in obvious and not so obvious ways.

lighting, directing, writing and acting are all massive plusses

are there some eerie, extremely tense, scary scenes? yes. but not a whole lot. honestly, the film reminded me a lot of Antichrist with looking eerie, creepy and haunting, but not necessarily being a scary / horror film. people expecting a straight up generic horror film will be left incredibly angry and bored. sucks to be them, but i loved the film for what Reeves represented, and definitely makes me want to see Let the Right One In sooner than later.

*** no real complaints about the film. maybe a few questionable pacing and structuring issues, but nothing severe, and the 109 minutes flew by.

EDIT: for those who have seen it, the only laughable, oddly illogical question i had was the school setting:

[Show spoiler]since when are 12 year-olds in class with apparently 16-17 year olds? and what 12 year olds have swimming classes and weight lifting?!

although since this is a remake of a Swedish film, maybe they do those things at that age in Swedish schools, but i know most U.S. schools don't do this until much, much later.

very, very much so recommended

PQ: 4/5 a lot of dark scenes of course, but i love the use of orange, blues and whites in numerous scenes
AQ: 4/5 a very quiet soundtrack with a lot of quiet dialogue, so my volume was quiet high and not a lot of loud scenes, but when they arrive, you know they're there.

4/5 - loved it

If 4/5 is loved it, what is 5/5?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by dag

I love this thread.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Steve, who do you have ahead of Bale?

Rush in the King's Speech.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Rush in the King's Speech.

I caught that when I got into that review.

I might be seeing the Kings Speech today. I dig Rush and Firth, so I'm eager to see it. Thanks for the reviews.