The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Hep

Maybe.

[Show spoiler]However, wire that sharp would certainly dull instantly with the pressures involved. I could see the use of square wire strands with the corners producing the necessary friction or bite into the bullwheels. Abrasive? absolutely plausible. Razor sharp, enough to shred gloves with the relatively light weight of a single human? Sceptical...if anything the abrasiveness of the wire should have provided the necessary grip not to slide down the incline. I'll have to watch the extras to decide if the myth is busted. I also have a good friend that was a ski lift mechanic in Fortress BC (of Inception film location fame) who I'll ask. Here's what wiki says about ski lift rope construction: Various techniques are used for constructing the rope. Dozens of wires are wound into a strand. Several strands are wound around a textile core, their twist is oriented in the same or opposite direction as the individual wires...The fibre core contains a lubricant which protects the rope from corrosion and also allows for smooth flexing operation. The rope must be regularly lubricated to ensure safe operation and long life.

In any case, if true, that is all the better reason to use your hard plastic ski boots to support over half your weight and protect your hands from a thrashing.

I will assume that the lubricant is soley to prevent corrosion, as actual lubing would cause slip, similar to if one would lube a fan belt on a car. Ask your buddy, I would love to hear the real nitty gritty truth and I am sure he can provide it. Let me know. I wonder why they dont use sprocket driven chains? Maybe not enough flex. Ask him that too please.

I think the kid was too weak/whimpy to get his legs up there. Didnt he swing and sway a couple of times attempting to do that?

[SquidPuppet]

A Soldier's Story

This was a pleasant watch for the most part. I felt thoroughly engaged for the majority of the film. The story is straightforward and told through a series of flashbacks and present day (1944) interviews. I enjoyed watching Captain Davenport attempt to reconstruct the crime through his questioning and research. The movie succeeded because it made me care about the outcome of the investigation and the characters involved. I wanted to know who was guilty, and I wanted to see a black man, left alone by the political BS to do his job. I liked how Davenport just wanted the facts. He was aware of skin color, the sketchy community he was in, the Klan, the white officers dislike for blacks with stripes, but all he cared about were the facts and evidence. He rose above the prejudices and pressures of his environment.

Good performances all around. Denzel being Denzel with all his posturing and posing. He's SO Denzel. Adolph Ceasar did well as the confused and angry a$$hole Sergeant Waters. Grier was good as Cobb. Pretty much solid across the board, even though there were a few times when a couple guys were trying just a little too hard.

I thought the screenplay was fine and there was some good intense dialogue. Especially the scenes of tension between Davenport and lesser ranking whites.

The best scene was in the Bar when the camera moved in on Waters little monologue about the young black kid he murdered in france. As he faced the mirror behind the bar, everything except Waters slowly blacked out and the ambience of the bar disappeard. Very effective. It gave great insight into how messed up the guy really was. How confused and angry he was. And it made clear, the theme of this lone marauder's intent to "fix" the black mans plight by committing genocide on his own race, one "dumb negro" at a time. Learned the trade from his Daddy....sick bastards.

The camerawork was not my cup of tea. Too rigid and structured for my tastes. But hey, its a military movie, so maybe it was intentional. Still didnt care for it.

The score was too 80's for my liking. Typical of the time, I know, but I just cant shake it. Its like porno music in a serious drama.

The DVD sucked. CROPPED.

I'm glad I saw it!! Good flick.

3.75/5 (lowered .25 for overall experience because of cinematography and score)

[Hep]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I will assume that the lubricant is soley to prevent corrosion, as actual lubing would cause slip, similar to if one would lube a fan belt on a car. Ask your buddy, I would love to hear the real nitty gritty truth and I am sure he can provide it. Let me know. I wonder why they dont use sprocket driven chains? Maybe not enough flex. Ask him that too please.

I think the kid was too weak/whimpy to get his legs up there. Didnt he swing and sway a couple of times attempting to do that?

I will ask my buddy for sure, I'm really curious now.

I know they tried to explain his wimpish tendencies

[Show spoiler](couldn't even do a pull up and all that)

, but if you look at how the chair lift was built, it was practically like a ladder to the cable; the way he did it took much more arm strength .

[SquidPuppet]

Date Night

2010 PG-13 88 minutes

Whats with all the hate?

I guess I just like the dry adult humor style of Carrel and Fey. They both do it, you know, the long knowing pauses after delivering the punchlines. They were a great combo and I liked their chemistry. I giggled a lot, chuckled more than once, and laughed out loud more than a few times.

A goofy Rom-com with some very real adult angst themes about marital boredom. The film also shows the deep connection a couple can have when there is true respect for one another. I loved the "So whats the story" game they played while people watching and making random analysis' of other couples.

A little bit of real life, a lot of absurd adventure, crooked cops and District Attorney, mob bosses, a healthy dash of poignant, and a $100,000.00 Audi destroying car chase. What more could I ask for from a movie designed to be simple entertainment.

Plenty of sharp one-liners that hit the nail on the head.

The "shirtless" Mark Wahlberg scenes had me in stitches.

For me it really worked. I think people who are a bit older, or have been in long term relationships will find more to appreciate here.

Film 4/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 4/5

[Q?]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

The trailer hooked me, I'm definitely interested in seeing this one. It's an HD Watch Instantly on Netflix if anyone's interested

Somehow I did not see your post, be sure to give your review if you see it.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Date Night

I stopped reading it after that.

[Show spoiler]Not really

____


Saw Unknown today.

It was enjoyable but not as good as I had hoped

Liam Neeson kicks some butt (but not much); the story is moderately interesting (but I called the twist from quite early on); January Jones and Frank Langella seemed to be there for the pay check; the action wasn't very well filmed; you could always tell what was going on but you couldn't appreciate it; there is a minor character that is introduced who serves virtually no purpose and was not needed to waste screen time on him.

Rent it one day, don't buy it.

Rating - 3.5/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Hep

I will ask my buddy for sure, I'm really curious now.

I know they tried to explain his wimpish tendencies

[Show spoiler](couldn't even do a pull up and all that)

, but if you look at how the chair lift was built, it was practically like a ladder to the cable; the way he did it took much more arm strength .

Bingo to your spoiler. My sister said he should have suspended himself with his board above the cable, feet strapped into boots, hanging upside down, using his hands only to shimmy/slide a few feet at a time. While being strapped would require almost zero strength, I told my Sis that technique (upside-down) would be a little too for me. I'll take a broken femur over a pancaked cranium anyday.

[Al_The_Strange]

My folks saw a real cinematic masterpiece and wanted to share it with me. A true classic gem long forgotten in the annals of time…

“The Brain That Wouldn’t Die”

Or…wait, that’s what it says at the beginning, but the end credits calls it the “Head That Wouldn’t Die.” What the?

At any rate, it’s a short B-rated sci-fi flick involving a mad scientist who, after a silly car crash, keeps his girlfriend’s accidentally-severed head alive…with science! While the head croons that she just wants to die, the guy goes out stalking hot women rather pathetically so he can take one of their bodies and fix his girlfriend.

Story sounds like a winner, doesn’t it? I couldn’t help but to think of the hilarious scenes in “Mars Attacks,” “The Man With Two Brains,” “Futurama,” and other features that lampoon off of this movie. It’s a rather ridiculous idea overall, and there are plenty of moments in this original film that are way too easy to make fun of. Then again, that’s where the fun is.

If this film was made today, it would either be a hilarious slapstick comedy (like one of the afore-mentioned films) or a grisly gorefest film (like “The Re-Animator” or something), either of which would have been awesome. Coming from 1962, this film shows its age horribly, and doesn’t really have en edge either way. But surprisingly, the edge does exist: there is actual blood on the screen! One guy looses his arm! There’s an awesome scene where two half-nude women fight (cleverly punctuated with the image of two cats and a meowing sound; we speculate that this is the mother of all catfights )! By today’s standards, this is still lame PG-rated fare. But for the 60s…OH MY GOD!!!

The film’s photography is generally not bad. But its weaknesses are strong: acting is pretty silly at times, writing is forceful in a bad way, and the production value is low and cheap (although there are some cool classic cars in the film). Music has some cool jazz.

Yep, the story sucks, the film is bad, but it’s fun for all the wrong reasons.

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

Recommendation: Nope! Not unless you’re really REALLY into these type of films.



Next greatest blind-buy: “10 Things I Hate About You.”

And to think, I thought all the good high-school comedies came from the 80s. This late 90s feature, a modernized adaptation of Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” features plenty of entertaining dialogue, scenes both funny and dramatic, and an entertaining story overall. Yep, there’s rarely a dull moment.

The story’s brilliant, as it sets up a fairly large group of characters to scheme and establish relationships that ultimately lead to interesting consequences. I’m not sure how this compares to the original story (sorry, never read it), but I can see how this story could have applied to an old-fashioned Elizabethan era; the story still works well in a high-school setting. The film cleverly inserts plenty of Shakespearean references and motifs, serving as effective homage. But even on its own merits, the story is quite solid, and the characters are very likable and fairly deep.

The film has good photography. Acting is brilliant: Heath Ledger is awesome, I liked Julia Stiles, and everybody else was good. Production value is good. Music is great (might get the soundtrack).

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: Yep!

This was worth the $4. I’ll probably upgrade it to Blu-Ray some day.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

[Show spoiler]My folks saw a real cinematic masterpiece and wanted to share it with me. A true classic gem long forgotten in the annals of time…

“The Brain That Wouldn’t Die”

Or…wait, that’s what it says at the beginning, but the end credits calls it the “Head That Wouldn’t Die.” What the?

At any rate, it’s a short B-rated sci-fi flick involving a mad scientist who, after a silly car crash, keeps his girlfriend’s accidentally-severed head alive…with science! While the head croons that she just wants to die, the guy goes out stalking hot women rather pathetically so he can take one of their bodies and fix his girlfriend.

Story sounds like a winner, doesn’t it? I couldn’t help but to think of the hilarious scenes in “Mars Attacks,” “The Man With Two Brains,” “Futurama,” and other features that lampoon off of this movie. It’s a rather ridiculous idea overall, and there are plenty of moments in this original film that are way too easy to make fun of. Then again, that’s where the fun is.

If this film was made today, it would either be a hilarious slapstick comedy (like one of the afore-mentioned films) or a grisly gorefest film (like “The Re-Animator” or something), either of which would have been awesome. Coming from 1962, this film shows its age horribly, and doesn’t really have en edge either way. But surprisingly, the edge does exist: there is actual blood on the screen! One guy looses his arm! There’s an awesome scene where two half-nude women fight (cleverly punctuated with the image of two cats and a meowing sound; we speculate that this is the mother of all catfights )! By today’s standards, this is still lame PG-rated fare. But for the 60s…OH MY GOD!!!

The film’s photography is generally not bad. But its weaknesses are strong: acting is pretty silly at times, writing is forceful in a bad way, and the production value is low and cheap (although there are some cool classic cars in the film). Music has some cool jazz.

Yep, the story sucks, the film is bad, but it’s fun for all the wrong reasons.

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

Recommendation: Nope! Not unless you’re really REALLY into these type of films.



Next greatest blind-buy: “10 Things I Hate About You.”

And to think, I thought all the good high-school comedies came from the 80s. This late 90s feature, a modernized adaptation of Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” features plenty of entertaining dialogue, scenes both funny and dramatic, and an entertaining story overall. Yep, there’s rarely a dull moment.

The story’s brilliant, as it sets up a fairly large group of characters to scheme and establish relationships that ultimately lead to interesting consequences. I’m not sure how this compares to the original story (sorry, never read it), but I can see how this story could have applied to an old-fashioned Elizabethan era; the story still works well in a high-school setting. The film cleverly inserts plenty of Shakespearean references and motifs, serving as effective homage. But even on its own merits, the story is quite solid, and the characters are very likable and fairly deep.

The film has good photography. Acting is brilliant: Heath Ledger is awesome, I liked Julia Stiles, and everybody else was good. Production value is good. Music is great (might get the soundtrack).

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: Yep!

This was worth the $4. I’ll probably upgrade it to Blu-Ray some day.

I'd say it's worth the $18 Amazon wants for it, the upgrade is very solid and I think makes the movie even more enjoyable. Finishing up Silence of the Lambs, possibly the best thriller of all-time, really wish they'd make more Hannibal films.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest blind-buy: “10 Things I Hate About You.”

And to think, I thought all the good high-school comedies came from the 80s. This late 90s feature, a modernized adaptation of Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” features plenty of entertaining dialogue, scenes both funny and dramatic, and an entertaining story overall. Yep, there’s rarely a dull moment.

The story’s brilliant, as it sets up a fairly large group of characters to scheme and establish relationships that ultimately lead to interesting consequences. I’m not sure how this compares to the original story (sorry, never read it), but I can see how this story could have applied to an old-fashioned Elizabethan era; the story still works well in a high-school setting. The film cleverly inserts plenty of Shakespearean references and motifs, serving as effective homage. But even on its own merits, the story is quite solid, and the characters are very likable and fairly deep.

The film has good photography. Acting is brilliant: Heath Ledger is awesome, I liked Julia Stiles, and everybody else was good. Production value is good. Music is great (might get the soundtrack).

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: Yep!

This was worth the $4. I’ll probably upgrade it to Blu-Ray some day.

I liked this movie and the relationship between the Dad and the daughters. A fun movie.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I liked this movie and the relationship between the Dad and the daughters. A fun movie.

Who knocked up your sister?
I thought the underwear model guy was hilarious, he was so completely out of touch with reality, even more so than Bianca and Cat's father.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I liked this movie and the relationship between the Dad and the daughters. A fun movie.

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

Who knocked up your sister?
I thought the underwear model guy was hilarious, he was so completely out of touch with reality, even more so than Bianca and Cat's father.

Great characters all!

[Foggy]

Raising Arizona

Ballistic, manic and completly out of control. One of the best Coen bros movies

10/10

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Date Night

2010 PG-13 88 minutes

Whats with all the hate?

[Show spoiler]I guess I just like the dry adult humor style of Carrel and Fey. They both do it, you know, the long knowing pauses after delivering the punchlines. They were a great combo and I liked their chemistry. I giggled a lot, chuckled more than once, and laughed out loud more than a few times.

A goofy Rom-com with some very real adult angst themes about marital boredom. The film also shows the deep connection a couple can have when there is true respect for one another. I loved the "So whats the story" game they played while people watching and making random analysis' of other couples.

A little bit of real life, a lot of absurd adventure, crooked cops and District Attorney, mob bosses, a healthy dash of poignant, and a $100,000.00 Audi destroying car chase. What more could I ask for from a movie designed to be simple entertainment.

Plenty of sharp one-liners that hit the nail on the head.

The "shirtless" Mark Wahlberg scenes had me in stitches.

For me it really worked. I think people who are a bit older, or have been in long term relationships will find more to appreciate here.

Film 4/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 4/5

I agree. Seems to be the younger audiences that majorly disliked the movie. I had a blast with it, at the theater, and have since had my fair share of chuckles at home with it on blu-ray.

I'm glad you still checked it out, despite all of the negativity surrounding the movie in this thread.

[Romulus]

Triangle (2009)

Okay... this film has been hyped up by the forum members for months now. Finally listened to Squid and decided to take this title for a spin.

Film definitely started off like a typical horror, which worried me a little bit. You have your standard set of characters embarking on a trip where nobody else is around to help them in case of an emergency. Then you have your problem arise (the storm) and a possible solution (abandoned ship). There are so many aspects that I found to be cliche in the first thirty minutes or so, but I realized that if it was a big hit on this forum then there would be more than appears to the eye. That assumption would be correct.

After I thought the first part was predictable, naturally I wanted to guess what would happen next and assume I was going to be right. Thankfully the film pulls out some punches. Over the course of the film, little twists reveal themselves and add what can be best called a "wtf" dynamic to the plot.

Unfortunately, this film was spoiled for me a while back when I was reading this very thread.

[Show spoiler]The spoiler part that was revealed to me was that she was living a continuous cycle over and over

. Granted, there is much more to the story than that but it certainly ruined a little bit of the fun for me.

Now, what was the story about?

[Show spoiler]Well, for myself I found two aspects of the film to be very important. One, is the Greek myth told of Sisyphus that was talked about when they first board the ship. Sisyphus is ordered to push a rock up a mountain, but before he can reach the top, the rock rolls all the way back down, forcing him to repeat this process for eternity. Sound familiar? On the surface it's easy to see the connection between the two. There's one problem that has to be explained though, why is she repeating this cycle? That leads me to the second aspect that I found absolutely crucial to the story: the death of her son in the car wreck. To me, her son really did die in a car wreck. As a result of her death, she feels guilty and wishes she can go back and change his death. The consequence of her guilt is a scenario in which she lives a cycle of living through a ship and ultimately get back to her son. The cycle is a way of her to cope with his death and try to change the outcome of the car wreck, even though it will never be the same. This is of course very similar to the story of Sisyphus. Both have a task that is grueling, but right before they accomplish their task they are sent back to square one.

That's how I saw the story. I haven't read any of your guys' personal theories on the subject matter and would love to see how it compares, but I think I get what happened. I would love some input to see if any of you reached a similar conclusion.

While Triangle made for an interesting story, I cannot say that I loved the film. Definitely a great watch, but it's not a film that I'll be adding to my collection anytime soon.

3.5/5

[Evra]

127 Hours (2010)

To be trapped alone and find out that no one can hear your screams, find you or help you in your predicament - that must be everyone's biggest fears. And that is what Aron Ralston had to deal with when his right arm was trapped between a rock and a hard place. We all know how the story goes, that after being stuck in Blue John Canyon for five days, Ralston cut his own arm in order to survive. No one believed his story until they went back to the scene of the event and found his arm right where he said it was and now, Ralston is still doing what he loves albeit with a mechanical arm.

Aron Ralston reminds me a lot like Philippe Petit, the man who walked between the World Trade Centre in New York in 1974. I do not know any of the two men but from what I have read of their adventures, I am certain that both Petit and Ralston (pre-amputation) share many similar traits - individualism and a passion for the unknown being two of them.

Aron Ralston is a doer, that much we can establish from the opening fifteen minutes of the film. He believes he can accomplish anything on his own and he believes in doing things as and when he likes it. While many of us will not even contemplate leaving the house without our phone, Ralston does not even give it a second thought to find his phone as he sets out on a one-man trip to God-knows-where. He appreciates being able to 'feel' things be it the sensation of feeling the warmth of the rocks and dust as he makes his way through the canyon, the adrenaline of falling several feet high into a lake, the pain of falling from a bike or having his feet bathe in sunlight amongst other things.

The film begins with a sequence where Ralston meets and has some fun with two girls on his way to a canyon, and after his escapades with them, the girls acknowledge that they did not feature in his plans while Ralston continues on his own personal adventure. That is when disaster strikes and Ralston gets trapped for 127 hours. From then on, we learn how Ralston keeps himself alive throughout this ordeal, much of it to do with him entertaining himself by reminiscing (and imagining) some of the more pleasant experiences that he had prior to the incident while also sharing his regrets of rejecting the people who cared about him through flashbacks and a confession recorded on a video camera.

We learn from the film and the book that Ralston much in the 127 hours trapped in the canyon, he never contemplates cutting off his arm until the final moments when he recognises that cutting his arm off is the only way he will ever make it out of his predicament alive and it is something that he would have to do rather than something that he may have to do. It is that feeling of dread and realisation of that particular fact that the film manages to humanise Ralston and his heroics by hinting that his actions is something that even you and I could do, though I am not sure I would!

Much has been said about the arm-cutting scene and how visceral and gory it is. I have read reports where people have fainted and that the sequence lasts over five minutes long. Let me tell you that it is at best, as bad as the leg-cutting scene in Saw. I do not want to sound sick and twisted but from the descriptions I have read, I expected more blood and mutilated limb on-screen.

By knowing how the situation plays out, the film loses its ability to surprise its audience as to how the film will end but one gets the sense that it is more important to find out how the film gets to the end rather than how it ends. In that respect, Danny Boyle, carrying on from his critically acclaimed Slumdog Millionaire has managed to create a wonderful film with some of the most brilliant kinetic photography I have seen. For a film that has its main character stuck in one single position for most of the film; the rapid cuts, the rapid camera movements, the inventive shots inside a straw or the split screen scenes, the film is paradoxically action packed.

James Franco, on the other hand, delivers a performance of a lifetime in 127 Hours and carries the film with his characterisation of Ralston. From his reaction to the horrifying scenario he finds himself in to the realisation of his selfish ways to the dread and pain on his face as he gnaws his arm off with a blunt tool, Franco manages to channel all these deep and dark emotions with aplomb and it is a true testament of Franco's abilities that he manages to keep us enthralled as the film moves into quieter territories when there is nothing or no one for Franco to interact with.

I do not intend to imply that Ralston is a masochist but there is a snide suspicion in me that feels that there are some aspects of getting his arm trapped that Ralston finds exhilarating and fun. I think even Ralston himself would rubbish such an idea that he 'enjoyed' certain aspects of that daunting experience but deep down, I suspect that he thinks otherwise. After all this is a man who gave his right arm to the spirit of adventure and continues doing so.

Note: I cannot help but think that 127 Hours and The King's Speech would make a terrific "unorthodox feel-good movies" double-feature. Both films are as brilliant as they are inspirational and both films are two of 2010's best films.

9/10

[Foggy]

I watched Kick-Ass in hopes of it making me feel better (It didn't really help out)

Still love the film though.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Triangle (2009)

Okay... this film has been hyped up by the forum members for months now. Finally listened to Squid and decided to take this title for a spin.

Film definitely started off like a typical horror, which worried me a little bit. You have your standard set of characters embarking on a trip where nobody else is around to help them in case of an emergency. Then you have your problem arise (the storm) and a possible solution (abandoned ship). There are so many aspects that I found to be cliche in the first thirty minutes or so, but I realized that if it was a big hit on this forum then there would be more than appears to the eye. That assumption would be correct.

After I thought the first part was predictable, naturally I wanted to guess what would happen next and assume I was going to be right. Thankfully the film pulls out some punches. Over the course of the film, little twists reveal themselves and add what can be best called a "wtf" dynamic to the plot.

Unfortunately, this film was spoiled for me a while back when I was reading this very thread.

[Show spoiler]The spoiler part that was revealed to me was that she was living a continuous cycle over and over

. Granted, there is much more to the story than that but it certainly ruined a little bit of the fun for me.

Now, what was the story about?

[Show spoiler]Well, for myself I found two aspects of the film to be very important. One, is the Greek myth told of Sisyphus that was talked about when they first board the ship. Sisyphus is ordered to push a rock up a mountain, but before he can reach the top, the rock rolls all the way back down, forcing him to repeat this process for eternity. Sound familiar? On the surface it's easy to see the connection between the two. There's one problem that has to be explained though, why is she repeating this cycle? That leads me to the second aspect that I found absolutely crucial to the story: the death of her son in the car wreck. To me, her son really did die in a car wreck. As a result of her death, she feels guilty and wishes she can go back and change his death. The consequence of her guilt is a scenario in which she lives a cycle of living through a ship and ultimately get back to her son. The cycle is a way of her to cope with his death and try to change the outcome of the car wreck, even though it will never be the same. This is of course very similar to the story of Sisyphus. Both have a task that is grueling, but right before they accomplish their task they are sent back to square one.

That's how I saw the story. I haven't read any of your guys' personal theories on the subject matter and would love to see how it compares, but I think I get what happened. I would love some input to see if any of you reached a similar conclusion.

While Triangle made for an interesting story, I cannot say that I loved the film. Definitely a great watch, but it's not a film that I'll be adding to my collection anytime soon.

3.5/5

Thats tragic that it was spoiled for you, because the beauty of the film is the journey itself and precisely that discovery.

You pretty much arrived where most of us did on your analysis.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats tragic that it was spoiled for you, because the beauty of the film is the journey itself and precisely that discovery.

You pretty much arrived where most of us did on your analysis.

It's a fun film no doubt, but it probably would have been a solid 4/5 if I hadn't learned about the spoiler prior. It was still fun to connect the dots and see where the story was headed.

On a related note, this film is now a huge hit with some of my friends. Thanks for the suggestion, Squid.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: “A Soldier’s Story.”

So we got a bunch of soldiers in WWII shacked up in some old-fashioned wooden barracks and they’re struggling for power and fair treatment…you know what? This reminds me so much of “Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence!” In terms of cinematic look and style, and production quality, these two films look pretty similar. Content-wise they are opposite; not only are they wholly different stories, but it seems to me that one portrayed the authorities and the subordinates as enemies who are trying to be friends while the other shows the two sides being friends but becoming enemies.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting, but on its own merits “A Soldier’s Story” struck me as…mildly interesting. The pacing is not bad, there are some tense parts, and some of the imagery is distinctive.

The story for this is really not as eventful as I expected; I guess I was expecting more of a war story or military training or something, rather than this mystery plot. The story doesn’t really move much, but it does have some conflict, especially in regards to racial struggle. Characters are okay and have a few interesting traits. But overall, I was underwhelmed.

Fortunately, it is a quality film with solid photography, quality acting (Denzel Washington is the man), decent writing, and a fine production value.

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

Recommendation: Worth a rent.