The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Hep]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

It felt a little flat to me. But not bad.

That helped a lot.

There's at least one scene that was full of curves though

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Q?

I just got Enter The Void in the mail guys

100% sure I'll see it tonight.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I disliked it. Just didn't connect well with me, and I found it dull outside of a few specific scenes.

I thought it was well-acted but was ultimately forgettable to me. A decent film, but certainly not one of Lumet's best. Like a lot of films, it's worth seeing because of its very good acting (on the part of Tomei and Hoffman).

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Ha ha ha.

I think JHiggy and I see eye to eye on the subject matter of Rwanda though. I just didnt get the gut punch I was hoping for from the film itself.

I'm still confused on his take on Pi. He needs to see it again in order to "fix" his opinion.

And yes, we agree on the subject matter. I don't think there's much room for debate regarding that issue (although it's obviously highly contentious). Imo, the subject matter alone is why it wasn't nominated for best picture. The event is one of the major black spots on American foreign policy in the latter half of the twentieth century.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

For 12 Angry Men? I'm being serious. I've never seen it. Well, I've seen the first ten minutes but that's it.

Yeahhh you need to fix that

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I've always respected your opinion, even though we do disagree on occasion. I am, however, in thorough disagreement regarding Cheadle and the "punch" of the film. I suspect you havent' seen the real life Paul Rusesabagina--Cheadle nailed his speech and mannerisms.

I have not, and I bet that would alter my opinion on his performance.

The best part of his performance though is the gradual change he endures on screen. It never seemed abrupt or forced, which is what made it so effective to me. As for the "punch" of the film, I think the fact that the majority of the film takes place in the hotel and not out in the towns where the massacre was happening is what may have lessened the punch to you. To me, that made the times when they ventured out of the hotel that much more effective though. Especially the

[Show spoiler]scene with all the bodies on the road.

The more I think about the film, and discuss it, I realize what was "off" for me personally. It sort of focused on a "micro scenario" of the overall masacres. It was more about this specific groups struggles. I think if the film dedicated more weight to the abandonment issue, I would have been more wound up. It clearly showed it, but I think the film would have benefitted from more emphasis on that point.

As for Pi, I'm certainly open to discussion about it for the sake of argument, but I highly doubt my view on it will change. I still find it a grating and annoying film, without too much value in any particular area (except maybe mood or black and white photography).

I agree, but I think that was the goal. It didnt work for you, and thats cool. A lot of Lynches films are like that....you endure/survive them and I can understand why people wouldnt like them. Heck, I LOVE Requiem for a Dream, but can fully understand why some people hate it.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Hep

There's at least one scene that was full of curves though

Ya know..............

I'll leave that alone....or the thread will...go in the wrong direction.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

yeahhh you need to fix that

+ 1 seriously

[SquidPuppet]

Dudes and Dudettes,

Has anyone here seen "Naked Kiss" or "Shock Corridor"? Talk to me. Good?

[Diesel]

Fight Club

I didn't like it.

It did not jive with me at all. I laughed a few times at some stuff (nun-chucks) but the remainder of the time I was completely and utterly uninterested. I couldn't get into the characters, the themes...almost anything really.

I liked the

[Show spoiler]flashes of Brad Pitt early in the film before we actually meet him though. I just looked it up and it seems I missed 2 of the six times he appears.

One and Done without a doubt.

Rating - 1/5


I did a search of the thread for this movie for other reviews and discussion and while doing so I see Bearcat gave Benjamin Button a 2/5 and he gives this a 5/5....well I guess we are opposites because I give this a 1/5 and Button a 4.75/5.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fight Club

I didn't like it.

It did not jive with me at all. I laughed a few times at some stuff (nun-chucks) but the remainder of the time I was completely and utterly uninterested. I couldn't get into the characters, the themes...almost anything really.

I liked the

[Show spoiler]flashes of Brad Pitt early in the film before we actually meet him though. I just looked it up and it seems I missed 2 of the six times he appears.

One and Done without a doubt.

Rating - 1/5

You and Roger Ebert agree on this movie, I'm one of those who thinks it's incredible, I guess it's another of those love it or hate it movies.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I thought it was well-acted but was ultimately forgettable to me. A decent film, but certainly not one of Lumet's best. Like a lot of films, it's worth seeing because of its very good acting (on the part of Tomei and Hoffman).

That's it exactly. It's a quality film, but forgettable.

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fight Club

[Show spoiler]
I didn't like it.

It did not jive with me at all. I laughed a few times at some stuff (nun-chucks) but the remainder of the time I was completely and utterly uninterested. I couldn't get into the characters, the themes...almost anything really.

I liked the

[Show spoiler]flashes of Brad Pitt early in the film before we actually meet him though. I just looked it up and it seems I missed 2 of the six times he appears.

One and Done without a doubt.

Rating - 1/5


I did a search of the thread for this movie for other reviews and discussion and while doing so I see Bearcat gave Benjamin Button a 2/5 and he gives this a 5/5....well I guess we are opposites because I give this a 1/5 and Button a 4.75/5.

Ah man, I thought you'd at least love the pyscho style and macho manly stuff.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fight Club

[Show spoiler]I didn't like it.

It did not jive with me at all. I laughed a few times at some stuff (nun-chucks) but the remainder of the time I was completely and utterly uninterested. I couldn't get into the characters, the themes...almost anything really.

I liked the

[Show spoiler]flashes of Brad Pitt early in the film before we actually meet him though. I just looked it up and it seems I missed 2 of the six times he appears.

One and Done without a doubt.

Rating - 1/5

I did a search of the thread for this movie for other reviews and discussion and while doing so I see Bearcat gave Benjamin Button a 2/5 and he gives this a 5/5....well I guess we are opposites because I give this a 1/5 and Button a 4.75/5.

Ruh roh, Bearcat won't be too thrilled to hear a 1/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fight Club

.

Rating - 1/5.

[dag]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Dudes and Dudettes,

Has anyone here seen "Naked Kiss" or "Shock Corridor"? Talk to me. Good?

You know I've seen both in the past week. Both films are rather crude and heavy-handed social commentaries; they each employ ridiculous plot setups; histrionic acting is employed throughout.

Shock Corridor felt like a dumb play being acted out in front of a camera - fixed sets that aren't claustrophobic, just redolent of the limited budget. I had said before that I laughed in derision when

[Show spoiler]the central character was attacked by the nymphos

. I do credit it for highlighting some of the social ills that were either prevalent or in need of greater public debate at that time, and it did have a couple of good soliloquies.

Even though The Naked Kiss had an absurd storyline, I myself was impressed - but that, too, says more about me perhaps than it does of the film. Again, this isn't a perfect film (would the third act really pass for a small town police investigation, even in the mid-60s?), but it did have its moments.

I don't know anything about the writer/producer/director. Both of these are minor films. But I didn't mind my time with them. I know this sounds lukewarm, damning with faint praise, but that's what these films are: interesting artifacts from a time that has long passed.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by dag

You know I've seen both in the past week. Both films are rather crude and heavy-handed social commentaries; they each employ ridiculous plot setups; histrionic acting is employed throughout.

Shock Corridor felt like a dumb play being acted out in front of a camera - fixed sets that aren't claustrophobic, just redolent of the limited budget. I had said before that I laughed in derision when

[Show spoiler]the central character was attacked by the nymphos

. I do credit it for highlighting some of the social ills that were either prevalent or in need of greater public debate at that time, and it did have a couple of good soliloquies.

Even though The Naked Kiss had an absurd storyline, I myself was impressed - but that, too, says more about me perhaps than it does of the film. Again, this isn't a perfect film (would the third act really pass for a small town police investigation, even in the mid-60s?), but it did have its moments.

I don't know anything about the writer/producer/director. Both of these are minor films. But I didn't mind my time with them. I know this sounds lukewarm, damning with faint praise, but that's what these films are: interesting artifacts from a time that has long passed.

Thank you!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Ah man, I thought you'd at least love the pyscho style and macho manly stuff.

I know right?

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Ruh roh, Bearcat won't be too thrilled to hear a 1/5

He said he wanted me to watch something and give it a 1/5 one of these days....he brought this on himself!

[Show spoiler]

[kpkelley]

Diesel, did you at least like the historic change of dialogue? One of the producers couldn't stand a line in the original script as spoken by HBC's character.

[Show spoiler]"I want to have your abortion."

Fincher agreed to change the dialogue on one condition, the dialogue he replaced it with could not be changed. The producer agreed, and we are given the classic line...

[Show spoiler]"I haven't been ****ed like that since grade school."

It's been said, that the producer didn't like that line any better.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Fight Club

I didn't like it.

It did not jive with me at all. I laughed a few times at some stuff (nun-chucks) but the remainder of the time I was completely and utterly uninterested. I couldn't get into the characters, the themes...almost anything really.

I liked the

[Show spoiler]flashes of Brad Pitt early in the film before we actually meet him though. I just looked it up and it seems I missed 2 of the six times he appears.

[/SPOILER]

One and Done without a doubt.

Rating - 1/5

1 out of freaking 5 huh? someone has an eye for greatness

Ironic since I wanted to see you give a film a 1/5, and then you give it to Fight Club?! oh well

I thought you would enjoy it more (obviously) and really enjoy the story and some of the themes, but I definitely missed the mark on this one! although I find it puzzling how you were uninterested here, but entertained by... Boring Buttons... ?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I know right?



He said he wanted me to watch something and give it a 1/5 one of these days....he brought this on himself!

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

"Fight Club" is the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since "Death Wish," a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up.

Sometimes, for variety, they beat up themselves. It's macho porn -- the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights. Women, who have had a lifetime of practice at dealing with little-boy posturing, will instinctively see through it; men may get off on the testosterone rush. The fact that it is very well made and has a great first act certainly clouds the issue.

Edward Norton stars as a depressed urban loner filled up to here with angst. He describes his world in dialogue of sardonic social satire. His life and job are driving him crazy. As a means of dealing with his pain, he seeks out 12-step meetings, where he can hug those less fortunate than himself and find catharsis in their suffering. It is not without irony that the first meeting he attends is for post-surgical victims of testicular cancer, since the whole movie is about guys afraid of losing their cojones.

These early scenes have a nice sly tone; they're narrated by the Norton character in the kind of voice Nathanael West used in Miss Lonelyhearts. He's known only as the Narrator, for reasons later made clear. The meetings are working as a sedative, and his life is marginally manageable when tragedy strikes: He begins to notice Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) at meetings. She's a "tourist" like himself--someone not addicted to anything but meetings. She spoils it for him. He knows he's a faker, but wants to believe everyone else's pain is real.

On an airplane, he has another key encounter, with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), a man whose manner cuts through the fog. He seems able to see right into the Narrator's soul, and shortly after, when the Narrator's high-rise apartment turns into a fireball, he turns to Tyler for shelter. He gets more than that. He gets in on the ground floor of Fight Club, a secret society of men who meet in order to find freedom and self-realization through beating one another into pulp.

It's at about this point that the movie stops being smart and savage and witty, and turns to some of the most brutal, unremitting, nonstop violence ever filmed. Although sensible people know that if you hit someone with an ungloved hand hard enough, you're going to end up with broken bones, the guys in "Fight Club" have fists of steel, and hammer one another while the sound effects guys beat the hell out of Naugahyde sofas with Ping-Pong paddles. Later, the movie takes still another turn. A lot of recent films seem unsatisfied unless they can add final scenes that redefine the reality of everything that has gone before; call it the Keyser Soze syndrome.

What is all this about? According to Durden, it is about freeing yourself from the shackles of modern life, which imprisons and emasculates men. By being willing to give and receive pain and risk death, Fight Club members find freedom. Movies like "Crash" must play like cartoons for Durden. He's a shadowy, charismatic figure, able to inspire a legion of men in big cities to descend into the secret cellars of a Fight Club and beat one another up.

Only gradually are the final outlines of his master plan revealed. Is Tyler Durden in fact a leader of men with a useful philosophy? "It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything," he says, sounding like a man who tripped over the Nietzsche display on his way to the coffee bar in Borders. In my opinion, he has no useful truths. He's a bully--Werner Erhard plus S & M, a leather club operator without the decor. None of the Fight Club members grows stronger or freer because of their membership; they're reduced to pathetic cultists. Issue them black shirts and sign them up as skinheads. Whether Durden represents hidden aspects of the male psyche is a question the movie uses as a loophole--but is not able to escape through, because "Fight Club" is not about its ending but about its action.

Of course, "Fight Club" itself does not advocate Durden's philosophy. It is a warning against it, I guess; one critic I like says it makes "a telling point about the bestial nature of man and what can happen when the numbing effects of day-to-day drudgery cause people to go a little crazy." I think it's the numbing effects of movies like this that cause people go to a little crazy. Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy. The images in movies like this argue for themselves, and it takes a lot of narration (or Narration) to argue against them.

Lord knows the actors work hard enough. Norton and Pitt go through almost as much physical suffering in this movie as Demi Moore endured in "G.I. Jane," and Helena Bonham Carter creates a feisty chain-smoking hellcat who is probably so angry because none of the guys thinks having sex with her is as much fun as a broken nose. When you see good actors in a project like this, you wonder if they signed up as an alternative to canyoneering.

The movie was directed by David Fincher and written by Jim Uhls, who adapted the novel by Chuck Palahniuk. In many ways, it's like Fincher's movie "The Game" (1997), with the violence cranked up for teenage boys of all ages. That film was also about a testing process in which a man drowning in capitalism (Michael Douglas) has the rug of his life pulled out from under him and has to learn to fight for survival. I admired "The Game" much more than "Fight Club" because it was really about its theme, while the message in "Fight Club" is like bleeding scraps of Socially Redeeming Content thrown to the howling mob.

Fincher is a good director (his work includes "Alien 3," one of the best-looking bad movies I have ever seen, and "Seven," the grisly and intelligent thriller). With "Fight Club" he seems to be setting himself some kind of a test--how far over the top can he go? The movie is visceral and hard-edged, with levels of irony and commentary above and below the action. If it had all continued in the vein explored in the first act, it might have become a great film. But the second act is pandering and the third is trickery, and whatever Fincher thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get. "Fight Club" is a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy--the kind of ride where some people puke and others can't wait to get on again.

Source - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...910150302/1023