Well ok so u only pointed out one of the ten I listed so Ill take that ratio. Got Em!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhiggy23
Fair enough, but here's the thing: you're picking films that you like better, as opposed to films that you rationally could think are better. Liking a film better is distinct from the film actually being better. For instance, I like The Fountain better than Raging Bull, but Raging Bull is a better film (I still love that film).
Quote:
Originally Posted by iam1bearcat
I think Czar has said this before, not sure, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but for Czar there is no difference. If he likes / loves a film, that's a better film than something he dislikes. In all categories. So if Czar likes Menace II Society more than The Godfather, then Menace is a better film. To him.
Again, I could be wrong, but I think Czar had a discussion like that with Squid and a few others once.
Well pretty much it does go hand in hand as I have said before. If I like a film better than another then most likely I think its a better film. It may not be 100% but for the most part thats how it is. Its just hard for me to watch a film that I think is just ok or decent and even if the acting is great and the directing is top notch, its hard for me to say its a great film when thats not how I felt after watching it. Yes The Social Network was well made but the overall product was just solid. A story about someone being sued due to a website idea just isnt that big for me. So again favorites/best is pretty much hand in hand but there may be a few exceptions but not many in my book. Got Em!!
year: 2007
director: Peter Hedges
starring: Steve Carell, Juliette Minoche, and Dane Cook
another blind buy!
i was always interested in seeing Dan in Real Life, but very little pushed me to seeing or even buying it. but, some strong praise in this forum made me look at it, and a new job and a $9.99 price tag made me take the leap to purchase it
so was it worth it?
absolutely!
at first i was worried. i thought, "oh, how original. a single dad with kids who is a bit goofy and out of 'loop' and has a quirky family. never seen that before" and while yes, that is how Dan in Real Life is, there is a hell of a lot more here. a lot more heart. a lot more laughs. a real feeling of authenticity and warmth that a lot of family films lack. Dan in Real Life is a perfect example of a feel good film
Carell is a gifted actor who can, at times, really showcase a lot of emotion with his voice and facial expressions and he does a dynamite job here. Juliette Minoche, who i've never heard of before, does a great job as well and plays pretty well off Carell with her presence. and while not a comedy actress, she handles her scenes well with a veteran actor. hell, even Dane Cook is great here (yes, great). while not a fan of his generic comedy, he always brings a strong exuberance to his films and adds an energy to scenes he takes part in. this is no exception.
i found myself liking the film more and more as it went on. not to say it started bad, but the film just picked up humor, emotion and feelings as it moved along. i couldn't tell you why the entire family is at the cabin, don't think it's necessary for the film, and it didn't effect my enjoyment of the film.
great cast, wonderful feel good story about finding love and learning about life and how different it is to actually live life in the moment instead of looking back on it and writing / critiquing it (we've all been talking to a friend and give advice about something but then forget that advice ourselves, right?). great atmosphere (very important ) and a real warmth the film gives off make this a resounding success.
highly recommended. won't ever win any awards in my book, but not every film needs to.
and who wouldn't laugh / squirm at that
[Show spoiler]shower
scene? and who wouldn't feel their heart drop when Dan
[Show spoiler]sings the end of the song in front of everyone
?
great stuff
[B]4.5/5[/B
]
Glad you liked it. You got the same vibe I got from it. Its so well balanced.
Now, if "The Family Stone" ever gats a Blu-ray release, dont miss it. Its more of the same, but better.
Fair enough, but here's the thing: you're picking films that you like better, as opposed to films that you rationally could think are better. Liking a film better is distinct from the film actually being better. For instance, I like The Fountain better than Raging Bull, but Raging Bull is a better film (I still love that film).
Well pretty much it does go hand in hand as I have said before. If I like a film better than another then most likely I think its a better film. It may not be 100% but for the most part thats how it is. Its just hard for me to watch a film that I think is just ok or decent and even if the acting is great and the directing is top notch, its hard for me to say its a great film when thats not how I felt after watching it.
We might disagree on singing talent but we're on the same page here
Quote:
Yes The Social Network was well made but the overall product was just solid. A story about someone being sued due to a website idea just isnt that big for me. So again favorites/best is pretty much hand in hand but there may be a few exceptions but not many in my book. Got Em!!
This is like singing because we disagree
But simply because I was really interested in the story the movie told (I couldn't care less about Facebook itself though).
[Show spoiler]
Another fine John Hughes comedy; as such, it’s light-hearted and family-friendly (save for one or two curse words and innuendos), and there’s enough witty dialogue and funny moments to keep it entertaining. “Uncle Buck” doesn’t quite approach the same level of hilarity or entertainment as some of Hughes’ other works, and with this simple story there’s not much conflict or tension to keep it fully engaging. But as the title character makes huge messes and tells people off, it does have plenty of fun moments.
The story is quite simple and has very little conflict to keep it running. It does handle the characters extremely well, as the title character learns to become a better person throughout the story, and other characters around him change for the better too. It’s hard not to love anybody in the film. The tension between Buck, Tia, and Chanice is the only thing that really drives the story; otherwise it’s mostly a montage of silly antics, with strong characters.
Cinematically, John Hughes’ films have never really been visually exceptional, and this one is no different. Photography is mostly average, but with some great camera angles (gotta love the in-your-face cameras when they’re dancing in the living room). Acting is wonderful; John Candy is perfectly lovable and relatable as the title character, I love Jean Louisa Kelly in her role, Gaby Hoffmann and MaCaulay Culkin are lovable and funny in their roles, and Amy Madigan is solid too. Production value is average at best. Music has some bright moments; it’s always cool watching Buck strolling through the school with Tone Loc’s “Wild Thing” playing.
The Blu-Ray seems to get a bad rap around here, but from what I can tell it’s gorgeous! It’s way sharper and cleaner than I’ve seen it before, with a healthy amount of film grain intact. If any DNR was applied, I can’t really tell. Colors and contrast are not wholly vibrant, but they never were for this film, and as far as I can tell it’s quite good. Sound quality is a 2-channel DTS track, which won’t knock anybody’s socks off, but for something that’s mostly dialogue and music it sounds great.
PQ: 4/5, AQ: 3.5/5
“Here’s a quarter! Go downtown and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!”
I reviewed these some time ago, but not in detail. This works out great, since this franchise was originally penned as a figurative son of James Bond…
“Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
[Show spoiler]
In the fashion of the old-fashioned serials, where a daring hero gallivants from one pitfall to another before closing with a thrilling cliffhanger, Indiana Jones makes his debut exploring an ancient South American temple. After the iconic hand-off scene, the place explodes around him, he hops through all the booby traps to escape, before being chased by natives! And that’s only a prelude; the adventure that follows pits him against all kinds of enemies, and they fight, chase each other, and raid more tombs before reaching a chilling climax. The action is frequent, and must take up nearly half of the film or more, and everything in between is tightly-paced, suspenseful, memorable, funny, dramatic…there is never a dull moment!
The story is great too. Maybe nothing deep or artistic, but the characters are pretty strong and we grow to love them the more we follow them in the movie. The McGuffin-driven quest they go on moves fast and logically, providing a solid platform to showcase the epic action scenes, in addition to the occasional bit of humor, romance, characterization, one or two historical/cultural lessons, and an underlying theme concerning the morality of treasure hunting.
Cinematically, it looks brilliant too. Photography is very strong all the way through, with plenty of interesting angles, steady composition, and interesting lighting effects. The combination of filming, sound design, and authentic locations give the film a natural rough n’ gritty appeal that I don’t think has been effectively reproduced anywhere else (except the next two sequels). Acting is great; Harrison Ford is perfect as Indy, Karen Allen is perfect as Marion, Paul Freeman makes a good villain (and a good foil for Indy’s character), and John Rhys-Davies is lovable. Writing is spot-on. Production value shows a few weaknesses (fake-looking sets, old-fashioned special effects), but otherwise has some really strong sets, props, and costumes, and the filmmakers show immaculate attention to detail. Music is classic!
5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: YES!!!!!
“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”
[Show spoiler]
After “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Spielberg, Lucas, and the gang had a hard act to follow. They generally delivered with this prequel, taking Indy through a thrilling roller-coaster ride (or a mine-card ride as the case may be) of an adventure. There are still lots of great fights, great chases, and even more memorable setpieces and sequences, and even more comedy. Yep, this film is still a blast!
The story never really felt that strong to me, especially when compared to its predecessor and successor. It does have merits though; this is a figurative journey to Hell, and it gets pretty darn dark and wicked at times. The whole heart-ripping scene is what gave birth to the PG-13 rating in the first place. My only complaint about all this is that it contrasts way too much with the silly comedy scattered throughout, breaking up any sense of foreboding.
Otherwise, the story is serviceable, at the least. It has tight pacing and a consistent flow (even if the transition from the opening scenes to the main story is a little screwy). Some of the action scenes get pretty absurd and unrealistic, but I find most of these faults forgivable. In the end, it’s still a fun story that’s well-told and with a group of likable characters.
The film has fine photography, with plenty of good camera angles and quality lighting. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Kate Capshaw (aside from being a bit annoying) plays her part perfectly, Jonathan Ke Quan is lovable as Short Round, Amrish Puri is perfect as the villain (probably the best villain in the series), and it’s interesting to see Dan Aykroyd and Phillip Stone in the mix (you know, the dude who played Grady in “The Shining.” Seems like I’m seeing him in a lot of films these days… ). Writing is great, production value is great, and the music is great.
[Show spoiler]
In his third film, Indiana Jones continues to hunt down artifacts and fight bad guys. This flick easily has as much action as the last outings, with plenty of fights and chases to entertain. The setpieces are quite ambitious as Indy outruns villains on a moving train, infiltrates a castle, and takes on a tank on horseback, among other brilliant sequences. And the comedy is probably the best in this film; the dialogue and interplay between characters are often quite witty.
The story for this is strong and ambitious as Indy goes out to find the holiest artifact of them all: the Holy Grail. The story is tightly-paced and well planned-out as mysteries unravel and turncoats are revealed as the adventure presses on. But what really propels this story to greatness are the characters; they receive their strongest treatment here as Indy struggles to reconcile things with his dad (not to mention, the opening flashback reveals a lot about their characters).
The film is still competently made, with quality photography. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Sean Connery is perfectly cast as Indy’s father (I told you James Bond was Indy’s father! ), Alison Doody is hot, John Rhys-Davies is still the man, Julian Glover is decent as the villain, and River Phoenix was perfect in his role. Writing is good, production value is high, and the music is awesome.
5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: Yes!
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”
[Show spoiler]
Nearly twenty years after the last adventure, a sixty-year-old Indiana Jones comes back for one more round (and perhaps more if they really are making more sequels to this). At the very least, he still knows how to kick butt! The film is surprisingly loaded with lengthy and awesome action sequences; the whole middle of the movie is a brilliant sequence as Indy and the gang chase, fight, and explores the jungles of the Amazon all at once! And with a plethora of quality special effects, the film is a sight to behold. Some of the action is quite absurd and unrealistic; it doesn't bother me that much, but it might make some viewers go .
But how does the story hold up? Pretty iffy. It does have many merits; seeing Indy in the 50s offers a lot of interesting insight as he struggles with cultural and political changes (as well as his old age and mortality). The film explores UFO-lore, the paranormal, and ancient history in a fairly solid fashion; I just feel that its delivery falls a little flat. I blame the writing for the most part; the first three films were brilliantly written with the right amount of exposition to explore the historical and cultural backgrounds of a given artifact. In this case the exposition is scattered, and provides very loose connections that don’t feel all that cohesive. Not to mention that the writing doesn’t really help the characters; they have their moments, but there’s nothing terribly insightful.
As a film, it’s got plenty of nice photography. Acting is solid; Harrison Ford is still the man after all these years, Karen Allen still plays her role very well, I like Cate Blanchett as the villain (although I do think her voice and accent are a little forced), Shia LaBeouf is…himself… Writing sucks. Production value is high, and there are way more overloaded special effects than I anticipated. I know there are a lot of issues that other viewers may nitpick about, but none of them really bothered me much. Music is not bad.
4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4/5)
Recommendation: As a rental.
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 03-21-2011 at 09:26 PM.
Another fine Bond film starring Roger Moore. More thrilling chases, more crazy fights, more wacky gadgets, more campy humor, and one really big battle for the finale. Yep, it’s pretty fun.
The story has absolutely zilch to do with the original Ian Flemming novel…but that’s probably for the best. Instead, the film showcases an interesting new premise: pitting James Bond against an equal and opposite Russian agent! Then the two start working together. Then they fall in love. Awwww… Such is the perfect allegory for a then-relevant theme of détente.
Otherwise, the rest of the story is pretty average. Megalomaniac villain wants to take over the world from a super-secret underwater base, stealing submarines so they can nuke each other…you get the picture. It’s serviceable, and provides a decent platform for the above premise, and for bringing Bond to Egypt for a change. And as a nice touch, Jaws the metal-mouthed henchman makes his debut. Ah yeah…
The film is not bad. It shows pretty good photography, though nothing I’d call exceptional. Acting is fine and dandy; Roger Moore is the man and Barbara Bach is hot and cool in her role. Writing is okay. Production value seems pretty decent. I couldn’t care less about this film’s music; the theme song is not to my taste (even if it is catchy), and the score has some weird old-fashioned funk to it.
It is a pretty interesting and unique Bond film, and probably one of the better Roger Moore ones. I just wouldn’t rank it higher than a…
4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4/5, film: 4/5)
Recommendation: As a rental.
This DVD has horrible EE. I hope the eventual Blu-Ray fixes it.
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 03-22-2011 at 08:53 AM.
[Show spoiler]
Another fine John Hughes comedy; as such, it’s light-hearted and family-friendly (save for one or two curse words and innuendos), and there’s enough witty dialogue and funny moments to keep it entertaining. “Uncle Buck” doesn’t quite approach the same level of hilarity or entertainment as some of Hughes’ other works, and with this simple story there’s not much conflict or tension to keep it fully engaging. But as the title character makes huge messes and tells people off, it does have plenty of fun moments.
The story is quite simple and has very little conflict to keep it running. It does handle the characters extremely well, as the title character learns to become a better person throughout the story, and other characters around him change for the better too. It’s hard not to love anybody in the film. The tension between Buck, Tia, and Chanice is the only thing that really drives the story; otherwise it’s mostly a montage of silly antics, with strong characters.
Cinematically, John Hughes’ films have never really been visually exceptional, and this one is no different. Photography is mostly average, but with some great camera angles (gotta love the in-your-face cameras when they’re dancing in the living room). Acting is wonderful; John Candy is perfectly lovable and relatable as the title character, I love Jean Louisa Kelly in her role, Gaby Hoffmann and MaCaulay Culkin are lovable and funny in their roles, and Amy Madigan is solid too. Production value is average at best. Music has some bright moments; it’s always cool watching Buck strolling through the school with Tone Loc’s “Wild Thing” playing.
The Blu-Ray seems to get a bad rap around here, but from what I can tell it’s gorgeous! It’s way sharper and cleaner than I’ve seen it before, with a healthy amount of film grain intact. If any DNR was applied, I can’t really tell. Colors and contrast are not wholly vibrant, but they never were for this film, and as far as I can tell it’s quite good. Sound quality is a 2-channel DTS track, which won’t knock anybody’s socks off, but for something that’s mostly dialogue and music it sounds great.
PQ: 4/5, AQ: 3.5/5
“Here’s a quarter! Go downtown and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!”
I reviewed these some time ago, but not in detail. This works out great, since this franchise was originally penned as a figurative son of James Bond…
“Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
[Show spoiler]
In the fashion of the old-fashioned serials, where a daring hero gallivants from one pitfall to another before closing with a thrilling cliffhanger, Indiana Jones makes his debut exploring an ancient South American temple. After the iconic hand-off scene, the place explodes around him, he hops through all the booby traps to escape, before being chased by natives! And that’s only a prelude; the adventure that follows pits him against all kinds of enemies, and they fight, chase each other, and raid more tombs before reaching a chilling climax. The action is frequent, and must take up nearly half of the film or more, and everything in between is tightly-paced, suspenseful, memorable, funny, dramatic…there is never a dull moment!
The story is great too. Maybe nothing deep or artistic, but the characters are pretty strong and we grow to love them the more we follow them in the movie. The McGuffin-driven quest they go on moves fast and logically, providing a solid platform to showcase the epic action scenes, in addition to the occasional bit of humor, romance, characterization, one or two historical/cultural lessons, and an underlying theme concerning the morality of treasure hunting.
Cinematically, it looks brilliant too. Photography is very strong all the way through, with plenty of interesting angles, steady composition, and interesting lighting effects. The combination of filming, sound design, and authentic locations give the film a natural rough n’ gritty appeal that I don’t think has been effectively reproduced anywhere else (except the next two sequels). Acting is great; Harrison Ford is perfect as Indy, Karen Allen is perfect as Marion, Paul Freeman makes a good villain (and a good foil for Indy’s character), and John Rhys-Davies is lovable. Writing is spot-on. Production value shows a few weaknesses (fake-looking sets, old-fashioned special effects), but otherwise has some really strong sets, props, and costumes, and the filmmakers show immaculate attention to detail. Music is classic!
5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: YES!!!!!
“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”
[Show spoiler]
After “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Spielberg, Lucas, and the gang had a hard act to follow. They generally delivered with this prequel, taking Indy through a thrilling roller-coaster ride (or a mine-card ride as the case may be) of an adventure. There are still lots of great fights, great chases, and even more memorable setpieces and sequences, and even more comedy. Yep, this film is still a blast!
The story never really felt that strong to me, especially when compared to its predecessor and successor. It does have merits though; this is a figurative journey to Hell, and it gets pretty darn dark and wicked at times. The whole heart-ripping scene is what gave birth to the PG-13 rating in the first place. My only complaint about all this is that it contrasts way too much with the silly comedy scattered throughout, breaking up any sense of foreboding.
Otherwise, the story is serviceable, at the least. It has tight pacing and a consistent flow (even if the transition from the opening scenes to the main story is a little screwy). Some of the action scenes get pretty absurd and unrealistic, but I find most of these faults forgivable. In the end, it’s still a fun story that’s well-told and with a group of likable characters.
The film has fine photography, with plenty of good camera angles and quality lighting. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Kate Capshaw (aside from being a bit annoying) plays her part perfectly, Jonathan Ke Quan is lovable as Short Round, Amrish Puri is perfect as the villain (probably the best villain in the series), and it’s interesting to see Dan Aykroyd and Phillip Stone in the mix (you know, the dude who played Grady in “The Shining.” Seems like I’m seeing him in a lot of films these days… ). Writing is great, production value is great, and the music is great.
[Show spoiler]
In his third film, Indiana Jones continues to hunt down artifacts and fight bad guys. This flick easily has as much action as the last outings, with plenty of fights and chases to entertain. The setpieces are quite ambitious as Indy outruns villains on a moving train, infiltrates a castle, and takes on a tank on horseback, among other brilliant sequences. And the comedy is probably the best in this film; the dialogue and interplay between characters are often quite witty.
The story for this is strong and ambitious as Indy goes out to find the holiest artifact of them all: the Holy Grail. The story is tightly-paced and well planned-out as mysteries unravel and turncoats are revealed as the adventure presses on. But what really propels this story to greatness are the characters; they receive their strongest treatment here as Indy struggles to reconcile things with his dad (not to mention, the opening flashback reveals a lot about their characters).
The film is still competently made, with quality photography. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Sean Connery is perfectly cast as Indy’s father (I told you James Bond was Indy’s father! ), Alison Doody is hot, John Rhys-Davies is still the man, Julian Glover is decent as the villain, and River Phoenix was perfect in his role. Writing is good, production value is high, and the music is awesome.
5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: Yes!
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”
[Show spoiler]
Nearly twenty years after the last adventure, a sixty-year-old Indiana Jones comes back for one more round (and perhaps more if they really are making more sequels to this). At the very least, he still knows how to kick butt! The film is surprisingly loaded with lengthy and awesome action sequences; the whole middle of the movie is a brilliant sequence as Indy and the gang chase, fight, and explores the jungles of the Amazon all at once! And with a plethora of quality special effects, the film is a sight to behold. Some of the action is quite absurd and unrealistic; it doesn't bother me that much, but it might make some viewers go .
But how does the story hold up? Pretty iffy. It does have many merits; seeing Indy in the 50s offers a lot of interesting insight as he struggles with cultural and political changes (as well as his old age and mortality). The film explores UFO-lore, the paranormal, and ancient history in a fairly solid fashion; I just feel that its delivery falls a little flat. I blame the writing for the most part; the first three films were brilliantly written with the right amount of exposition to explore the historical and cultural backgrounds of a given artifact. In this case the exposition is scattered, and provides very loose connections that don’t feel all that cohesive. Not to mention that the writing doesn’t really help the characters; they have their moments, but there’s nothing terrible insightful.
As a film, it’s got plenty of nice photography. Acting is solid; Harrison Ford is still the man after all these years, Karen Allen still plays her role very well, I like Cate Blanchett as the villain (although I do think her voice and accent are a little forced), Shia LaBeouf is…himself… Writing sucks. Production value is high, and there are way more overloaded special effects than I anticipated. I know there are a lot of issues that other viewers may nitpick about, but none of them really bothered me much. Music is not bad.
Unfortunately, I might be in the same boat as Sensei Squidpuppet. There’s something about French new-wave that I’m finding rather off-putting, and “Hiroshima Mon Amour” is no different.
Entertainment-wise, I found myself rather bored with the film. It has a decent length to it, but it moves slowly and doesn’t really have enough conflict to keep me engaged.
Story-wise, I didn’t feel there was much of a story to follow at all. It seems to meander from one scene to the next with no sense of direction, much less conflict or tension. As such, I couldn’t really get into it that well, and I couldn’t care about the characters.
As a film, it seems strong. Photography is gorgeous, especially in black-and-white. Acting seems decent all around, I had no real issues with the writing, and the production value looks genuine and good. Music is a bit of a mixed bag, and I can’t say I cared for it.
Going into this film, I really wasn’t sure what to expect. A documentary about Hiroshima? A disaster film? An epic film? A war film? Something really artsy and invoking? It might be the latter for most people, but I see it mostly as a dramatic love-story using the Hiroshima tragedy as a parallel of some kind. That in itself may make it strong, but I personally would have been more engaged if it was one of the other options above.
For what it’s worth, I did find the opening montage interesting, and I believe that in itself is poetic and worth looking at. The film overall is worthwhile. It’s just not to my taste at this time.
thanks pj! i didn't want to drop $24 on it, but i thought, "eh, F it. i love it. it's worth it" and it totally was / is love the soundtrack too.
great stuff
I bought Adventureland the day it came out. I probably ended up paying roughly the same as you did and I don't regret it either. I ended up watching it more times than any other movie that year. It was only 3 times, but that's beside the point.
Was watching Being John Malkovich and I really wasn't getting into it, I didn't think it was bad, I just thought it was surreal for the sake of it and just really uncomfortable to watch
Was watching Being John Malkovich and I really wasn't getting into it, I didn't think it was bad, I just thought it was surreal for the sake of it and just really uncomfortable to watch
Jonze and Kaufman are super-weird. It seems interesting, but I just couldn't finish it on my first viewing. Maybe I'll try again sometime.
Adaptation is a more mainstream work of the two, but even that gets a bit weird and random at the final act.
Jonze and Kaufman are super-weird. It seems interesting, but I just couldn't finish it on my first viewing. Maybe I'll try again sometime.
Yeah I gave up about half way through, but I was just wanting to ditch it earlier, I found every step it took forward to me liking it, it took an extra step backwards to push me back out.
[Show spoiler]
In the fashion of the old-fashioned serials, where a daring hero gallivants from one pitfall to another before closing with a thrilling cliffhanger, Indiana Jones makes his debut exploring an ancient South American temple. After the iconic hand-off scene, the place explodes around him, he hops through all the booby traps to escape, before being chased by natives! And that’s only a prelude; the adventure that follows pits him against all kinds of enemies, and they fight, chase each other, and raid more tombs before reaching a chilling climax. The action is frequent, and must take up nearly half of the film or more, and everything in between is tightly-paced, suspenseful, memorable, funny, dramatic…there is never a dull moment!
The story is great too. Maybe nothing deep or artistic, but the characters are pretty strong and we grow to love them the more we follow them in the movie. The McGuffin-driven quest they go on moves fast and logically, providing a solid platform to showcase the epic action scenes, in addition to the occasional bit of humor, romance, characterization, one or two historical/cultural lessons, and an underlying theme concerning the morality of treasure hunting.
Cinematically, it looks brilliant too. Photography is very strong all the way through, with plenty of interesting angles, steady composition, and interesting lighting effects. The combination of filming, sound design, and authentic locations give the film a natural rough n’ gritty appeal that I don’t think has been effectively reproduced anywhere else (except the next two sequels). Acting is great; Harrison Ford is perfect as Indy, Karen Allen is perfect as Marion, Paul Freeman makes a good villain (and a good foil for Indy’s character), and John Rhys-Davies is lovable. Writing is spot-on. Production value shows a few weaknesses (fake-looking sets, old-fashioned special effects), but otherwise has some really strong sets, props, and costumes, and the filmmakers show immaculate attention to detail. Music is classic!
5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: YES!!!!!
Quote:
“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”
[Show spoiler]
After “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Spielberg, Lucas, and the gang had a hard act to follow. They generally delivered with this prequel, taking Indy through a thrilling roller-coaster ride (or a mine-card ride as the case may be) of an adventure. There are still lots of great fights, great chases, and even more memorable setpieces and sequences, and even more comedy. Yep, this film is still a blast!
The story never really felt that strong to me, especially when compared to its predecessor and successor. It does have merits though; this is a figurative journey to Hell, and it gets pretty darn dark and wicked at times. The whole heart-ripping scene is what gave birth to the PG-13 rating in the first place. My only complaint about all this is that it contrasts way too much with the silly comedy scattered throughout, breaking up any sense of foreboding.
Otherwise, the story is serviceable, at the least. It has tight pacing and a consistent flow (even if the transition from the opening scenes to the main story is a little screwy). Some of the action scenes get pretty absurd and unrealistic, but I find most of these faults forgivable. In the end, it’s still a fun story that’s well-told and with a group of likable characters.
The film has fine photography, with plenty of good camera angles and quality lighting. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Kate Capshaw (aside from being a bit annoying) plays her part perfectly, Jonathan Ke Quan is lovable as Short Round, Amrish Puri is perfect as the villain (probably the best villain in the series), and it’s interesting to see Dan Aykroyd and Phillip Stone in the mix (you know, the dude who played Grady in “The Shining.” Seems like I’m seeing him in a lot of films these days… ). Writing is great, production value is great, and the music is great.
[Show spoiler]
In his third film, Indiana Jones continues to hunt down artifacts and fight bad guys. This flick easily has as much action as the last outings, with plenty of fights and chases to entertain. The setpieces are quite ambitious as Indy outruns villains on a moving train, infiltrates a castle, and takes on a tank on horseback, among other brilliant sequences. And the comedy is probably the best in this film; the dialogue and interplay between characters are often quite witty.
The story for this is strong and ambitious as Indy goes out to find the holiest artifact of them all: the Holy Grail. The story is tightly-paced and well planned-out as mysteries unravel and turncoats are revealed as the adventure presses on. But what really propels this story to greatness are the characters; they receive their strongest treatment here as Indy struggles to reconcile things with his dad (not to mention, the opening flashback reveals a lot about their characters).
The film is still competently made, with quality photography. Acting is great; Harrison Ford is still the man, Sean Connery is perfectly cast as Indy’s father (I told you James Bond was Indy’s father! ), Alison Doody is hot, John Rhys-Davies is still the man, Julian Glover is decent as the villain, and River Phoenix was perfect in his role. Writing is good, production value is high, and the music is awesome.
5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 5/5, film: 5/5)
Recommendation: Yes!
Quote:
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”
[Show spoiler]
Nearly twenty years after the last adventure, a sixty-year-old Indiana Jones comes back for one more round (and perhaps more if they really are making more sequels to this). At the very least, he still knows how to kick butt! The film is surprisingly loaded with lengthy and awesome action sequences; the whole middle of the movie is a brilliant sequence as Indy and the gang chase, fight, and explores the jungles of the Amazon all at once! And with a plethora of quality special effects, the film is a sight to behold. Some of the action is quite absurd and unrealistic; it doesn't bother me that much, but it might make some viewers go .
But how does the story hold up? Pretty iffy. It does have many merits; seeing Indy in the 50s offers a lot of interesting insight as he struggles with cultural and political changes (as well as his old age and mortality). The film explores UFO-lore, the paranormal, and ancient history in a fairly solid fashion; I just feel that its delivery falls a little flat. I blame the writing for the most part; the first three films were brilliantly written with the right amount of exposition to explore the historical and cultural backgrounds of a given artifact. In this case the exposition is scattered, and provides very loose connections that don’t feel all that cohesive. Not to mention that the writing doesn’t really help the characters; they have their moments, but there’s nothing terribly insightful.
As a film, it’s got plenty of nice photography. Acting is solid; Harrison Ford is still the man after all these years, Karen Allen still plays her role very well, I like Cate Blanchett as the villain (although I do think her voice and accent are a little forced), Shia LaBeouf is…himself… Writing sucks. Production value is high, and there are way more overloaded special effects than I anticipated. I know there are a lot of issues that other viewers may nitpick about, but none of them really bothered me much. Music is not bad.
We might disagree on singing talent but we're on the same page here
This is like singing because we disagree
But simply because I was really interested in the story the movie told (I couldn't care less about Facebook itself though).
Yea atleast u agree with my theory haha. Got Em!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange
“Hiroshima Mon Amour.”
[Show spoiler]Unfortunately, I might be in the same boat as Sensei Squidpuppet. There’s something about French new-wave that I’m finding rather off-putting, and “Hiroshima Mon Amour” is no different.
Entertainment-wise, I found myself rather bored with the film. It has a decent length to it, but it moves slowly and doesn’t really have enough conflict to keep me engaged.
Story-wise, I didn’t feel there was much of a story to follow at all. It seems to meander from one scene to the next with no sense of direction, much less conflict or tension. As such, I couldn’t really get into it that well, and I couldn’t care about the characters.
As a film, it seems strong. Photography is gorgeous, especially in black-and-white. Acting seems decent all around, I had no real issues with the writing, and the production value looks genuine and good. Music is a bit of a mixed bag, and I can’t say I cared for it.
Going into this film, I really wasn’t sure what to expect. A documentary about Hiroshima? A disaster film? An epic film? A war film? Something really artsy and invoking? It might be the latter for most people, but I see it mostly as a dramatic love-story using the Hiroshima tragedy as a parallel of some kind. That in itself may make it strong, but I personally would have been more engaged if it was one of the other options above.
For what it’s worth, I did find the opening montage interesting, and I believe that in itself is poetic and worth looking at. The film overall is worthwhile. It’s just not to my taste at this time.
2/5 (entertainment: 2/5, story: 0.5/5, film: 4/5)
Recommendation: As a rental.
Damn is this film really that bad??? I dont know JHiggy u might be losing some points here man haha. Got Em!!
Luke staring at the sunset on Tatooine is reason enough to rate this 5/5. As a kid I found this movie to be the worst and most boring installment. Now I think it is the best. The editing is perfect which causes excellent pacing. And John Williams' score is absolutely brillant. He won the Oscar for best original score rightly.
The Empire Strikes Back 5/5
Definitely darker/more mature than its predecessor. I loved this movie to death as a kid and it was my favorite SW film. Now it's the second best imo. Two scenes still give me goosebumps every single time I watch this movie:
[Show spoiler]1) Vader: "No, I am your father!"
2) Luke: "I'm not afraid."
Yoda: "Ohhh.... you will be, you will be."
The music score might be the best in the trilogy.
Return of the Jedi 5/5
The weakest installment but still a very very good movie imo. I love the whole triangle relationship between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The finale duel is excellent and
[Show spoiler]Vader's redemption is so powerful. Luke burning his father
makes me cry every single time. I don't hate the ewoks, but I don't love them either. I think they are okay. George could have come up with something better, but everything else involving Luke, Vader and the Emperor is just so dark, that I think it's a good contrast. And once again, a great powerful score by the wonderful John Williams.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
and while yes, that is how Dan in Real Life is, there is a hell of a lot more here. a lot more heart. a lot more laughs. a real feeling of authenticity and warmth that a lot of family films lack. Dan in Real Life is a perfect example of a feel good film 
) and a real warmth the film gives off make this a resounding success.
and who wouldn't feel their heart drop when Dan 
). Writing is great, production value is great, and the music is great.
love the soundtrack too. 
Linear Mode
