The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Do your friends own you? Do they have chains and ropes tied to you and do they have that "eyes will be open the whole time" helmet thing from A Clockwork Orange? You make it seem like you must watch Scream 4 because they're going to see it.

Tell them to F off until you've seen the first 3!

Ahh, we ain't bothering any more. But they do have one of those chairs

[iam1bearcat]

The Godfather

173 minutes

Year: 1972
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, and James Caan

how many days does it take to watch a three hour movie?

apparently three days is the answer it's amazing how many times something comes up right in the middle of a 173 minute film. one day though, i will sit down and watch The Godfather in one sitting. ahh... that day can't come soon enough

alright, off to what is considered by many as the greatest film of all time...

in my book, it's not. not even close. did i enjoy it? absolutely. is it perfect? absolutely not. there are a lot of areas that i didn't like or found disjointed. but, in the end, i still am glad i bought The Godfather Collection and am looking forward to starting The Godfather Pt. II (probably sometime this weekend)

some thoughts on the film to hopefully keep this review moderate in size

• acting.
  terrific across the board - except for the women (they were all generally terrible in all they did was yell and scream ). Pacino was amazing, although his lack of emotion was a bit ridiculous at times. i mean, he saw
  [Show spoiler]his wife get blown up in his car! sat through his father's funeral, and killed two big time gangsters (or a cop in a gangster's pocket) in cold blood
  yet no emotion ever comes across his face. but the performance is still built on quiet confidence and an undermining anger. but still, come on, subtleties aside, the story could have him show SOMETHING as far as expressions go.
  
• odd pacing issues
  after the first 90 minutes, for the next 40 or so minutes, the film feels really, really random and a mixed bag of scenes that don't play well together. we go from Michael
  [Show spoiler]in Italy (or somewhere like that), suddenly meeting a girl he wants to be his wife, back to New York where Teddy (i think...) beats up his sister's husband, because she got beat up. why'd she get beat up? i don't think we ever really know. then BAM! back to Italy for the wedding. then Sonny gets killed! then Michael's wife gets killed!
  it really felt like an endless cycle of "wtf is happening now?" and "why is this happening?" with no background information. honestly, for a film this long, many scenes seemed to have no history behind them and just came from nowhere. this bugged me, but it may just be me.
  
• Michael's dinner scene
  now, not really a problem i have with this scene, but just a minor quibble about it:
  [Show spoiler]this could have been soooo much more tense and frightening and awkward to watch. when Michael is in the bathroom looking for the gun and we keep cutting back to the table and the mob boss keeps looking at the bathroom, it was very much but then it just ends and all that momentum and power the scene had just abruptly ends. which sucked a lot

there were a few scenes i loved, a few i didn't really care for and a few that just were there for characterization that were nice and i appreciate, so overall they kind of even each other out. the biggest telling point for The Godfather and how much i liked it (or didn't like it) was how it took me three days to watch it and i never once was super eager to rush home and finish it. i would come home and think, "alright, let's watch The Godfather" and if something would interrupt me (which happened a lot ) i wouldn't be as pissed as i would had i been really loving what i was watching.

been bouncing back and forth between giving The Godfather a 3.5/5 and a 4/5 so i'm gonna go with the dead middle of the two and go with...

3.75/5

[P@t_Mtl]

Pretty good review

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Looks like I will be watching Scream 4 tomorrow some warning my friends gave me

Watch it.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yeah, I had no problem with Diaz or Cruise either, the story was just flat to me.

I can respect that even if I don't agree.

[Steve46]

The Ghost Writer
Directed by Roman Polankski
Starring Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan
128 minutes

I'm not sure why I made this a bind buy, but I'm glad I did. There are no ghosts in it and not much writing.

The reason it stands out from the crowd is the screenplay, pacing and exposition. The story has a way of drawing you in, like any good novel. I felt like some of the things were happening to me.

It's not an action movie. It's largely free of cliche. It's simply a story that I hadn't seen told before and one that had enough twists to keep me guessing.

Ebert mentions Hitchcock in his review. High praise, but I see where he's coming from. It's a smart story that builds tension in a smart way without the use of gimmicks. I can imagine watching this many times.

Overall 4.5/5

[volcomsocal]

Toy Story - 1995

I don't remember if I had seen this movie in its entirety or not, so I Netflixed it. I haven't seen 2 or 3 yet, so I had to watch 1.

I enjoyed it. Had some laughs, decent storyline, good script. Nothing crazy here, just good fun enjoyment.

PQ - 4/5
AQ - 4.5/5

3/5

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Ghost Writer
Directed by Roman Polankski
Starring Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan
128 minutes

I'm not sure why I made this a bind buy, but I'm glad I did. There are no ghosts in it and not much writing.

The reason it stands out from the crowd is the screenplay, pacing and exposition. The story has a way of drawing you in, like any good novel. I felt like some of the things were happening to me.

It's not an action movie. It's largely free of cliche. It's simply a story that I hadn't seen told before and one that had enough twists to keep me guessing.

Ebert mentions Hitchcock in his review. High praise, but I see where he's coming from. It's a smart story that builds tension in a smart way without the use of gimmicks. I can imagine watching this many times.

Overall 4.5/5

I've heard this is quite good-- will pick this one up when I see a good price....

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

The Godfather

[Show spoiler]
173 minutes

Year: 1972
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, and James Caan

how many days does it take to watch a three hour movie?

apparently three days is the answer it's amazing how many times something comes up right in the middle of a 173 minute film. one day though, i will sit down and watch The Godfather in one sitting. ahh... that day can't come soon enough

alright, off to what is considered by many as the greatest film of all time...

in my book, it's not. not even close. did i enjoy it? absolutely. is it perfect? absolutely not. there are a lot of areas that i didn't like or found disjointed. but, in the end, i still am glad i bought The Godfather Collection and am looking forward to starting The Godfather Pt. II (probably sometime this weekend)

some thoughts on the film to hopefully keep this review moderate in size

• acting.
  terrific across the board - except for the women (they were all generally terrible in all they did was yell and scream ). Pacino was amazing, although his lack of emotion was a bit ridiculous at times. i mean, he saw
  [Show spoiler]his wife get blown up in his car! sat through his father's funeral, and killed two big time gangsters (or a cop in a gangster's pocket) in cold blood
  yet no emotion ever comes across his face. but the performance is still built on quiet confidence and an undermining anger. but still, come on, subtleties aside, the story could have him show SOMETHING as far as expressions go.
  
• odd pacing issues
  after the first 90 minutes, for the next 40 or so minutes, the film feels really, really random and a mixed bag of scenes that don't play well together. we go from Michael
  [Show spoiler]in Italy (or somewhere like that), suddenly meeting a girl he wants to be his wife, back to New York where Teddy (i think...) beats up his sister's husband, because she got beat up. why'd she get beat up? i don't think we ever really know. then BAM! back to Italy for the wedding. then Sonny gets killed! then Michael's wife gets killed!
  it really felt like an endless cycle of "wtf is happening now?" and "why is this happening?" with no background information. honestly, for a film this long, many scenes seemed to have no history behind them and just came from nowhere. this bugged me, but it may just be me.
  
• Michael's dinner scene
  now, not really a problem i have with this scene, but just a minor quibble about it:
  [Show spoiler]this could have been soooo much more tense and frightening and awkward to watch. when Michael is in the bathroom looking for the gun and we keep cutting back to the table and the mob boss keeps looking at the bathroom, it was very much but then it just ends and all that momentum and power the scene had just abruptly ends. which sucked a lot

there were a few scenes i loved, a few i didn't really care for and a few that just were there for characterization that were nice and i appreciate, so overall they kind of even each other out. the biggest telling point for The Godfather and how much i liked it (or didn't like it) was how it took me three days to watch it and i never once was super eager to rush home and finish it. i would come home and think, "alright, let's watch The Godfather" and if something would interrupt me (which happened a lot ) i wouldn't be as pissed as i would had i been really loving what i was watching.

been bouncing back and forth between giving The Godfather a 3.5/5 and a 4/5 so i'm gonna go with the dead middle of the two and go with...

3.75/5

I remember watching it in one sitting. But I had all the same reservations you did; acting felt a little flat to me (that might be just because I favor lively acting over this subtle melodrama), I couldn't get a good grasp of the story (eh, crime dramas were still elusive to me back then), and the pacing was very slow for me. But, it is worthwhile seeing.

I think I liked Part II a grade better. Maybe you'll see why...

I liked Part III too...

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest movie borrowed from a library: “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.”

I remember my parents used to have a huge freaking Laser-Disc set for this one. I just couldn’t remember much of the movie…other than its old and long.

With a massive ensemble cast (including the likes of Spencer Tracy, Mickey Rooney, Sid Caesar, Milton Berle, Buddy Hackett, Jimmy Durante, and cameos by Buster Keaton, Peter Faulk, all three of the Stooges, and God knows who else!), and clocking in at around 2 hours 40 minutes (same as “Avatar” or “Watchmen”), this is a comedy for the ages. The whole thing is a fast, silly, hectic, slapstick madcap road-trip adventure. There are plenty of humorous antics, gags, and situations, along with loads of crazy fighting and arguing; even with its long runtime, there’s hardly a dull moment!

The story behind all this madness is as simple as it is brilliant; it kicks off with a dying man telling a group of people where a small fortune is buried, and they all go off in a mad hustle to find it! The story and characters don’t have that much depth to them, but it is inherently thoughtful watching these people going nuts over greed. Characters often act unreasonable and a lot of conflict is dug up unnecessarily, but in light of the situation it’s not too unbelievable. More importantly, the story’s handled in such a lighthearted and energetic way that it’s easy to sit back and laugh at it.

The film shows decent photography and editing. Acting and writing are swell; it’s especially fun watching all the actor’s wild expressions. Production value must be pretty high, and is certainly effective. Music is okay.

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

Recommendation: Yep!

I want a Blu-Ray please.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I remember watching it in one sitting. But I had all the same reservations you did; acting felt a little flat to me (that might be just because I favor lively acting over this subtle melodrama), I couldn't get a good grasp of the story (eh, crime dramas were still elusive to me back then), and the pacing was very slow for me. But, it is worthwhile seeing.

I think I liked Part II a grade better. Maybe you'll see why...

I liked Part III too...

I've been sitting on Part 2 since I saw Part 1 a while back, I think I might get around to watching it this weekend

[SquidPuppet]

Memories of Murder

2003 NR 131 minutes

Netflix synosis:

Based on true events, director Bong Joon-ho's moody suspense thriller follows the investigation of South Korea's first recorded case of a serial killer. Over six years, a vicious psychopath has raped and murdered 10 women. Rural cops Park (Song Kang-ho) and Jo (Kim Roe-ha) are assigned to the case, but working with neither a precedent nor advanced forensic technology, they must rely on primitive methods to piece together the clues

The good:

The camera work was really really good. Positioning, composition, and movement were brilliant. Production values were good and I didnt notice any jarring continuity boners. The DVD looke fantastic upscaled.

The bad:

Same old story, told the same old way. I couldnt like the cops and root for them because of their methods and lack of ethics and morals. With nobody to like on the "good guy" team, I felt disconnected from the mission.

I thought the acting was horrid except for the female employee at the police station and Detective Park Doo-Man's wife. I thought both of them were quite good.

The dialogue *appeared* way too goofy to me. The conversations seemed to jump topic in a bizarre way. But that might be a cultural difference, so I cant knock it because I dont know. All the infighting among the cops felt way too silly for me. The constant physical confrontations came across like Laurel and Hardy. I dont know if many of those moments were meant as comic relief, but the balance between humor and tension didnt work for me at all.

I thought there were many scenes that added nothing to the story. Like the "Cops getting drunk in the bar" scene with the Seoul Detective

[Show spoiler]barfing in the bucket. What was that for?

I didnt find the ending satisfying at all. I dont need the kind of closure that comes from

[Show spoiler]capturing the killer

, but the whole cat and mouse thing was not resolved. Its OK if the

[Show spoiler]baddie is still on the loose

, but I'd prefer some mystery or intrigue to spice it up. Maybe something spooky from the killers perspective. It just kinda fizzled out.

I didnt hate it, but I cant say I liked it.

2.5/5

[CZAR]

Surrogates - This film was ok but couldve been better. The story was kinda weak but liked the effects. The concept was actually cool as well but the execution couldve been better. Not really to much else to say about this film and I wouldnt necessarily recommend this film but if u must see it then rent it. Got Em!!

Film Rating - 3 stars (out 5)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Surrogates - This film was ok but couldve been better. The story was kinda weak but liked the effects. The concept was actually cool as well but the execution couldve been better. Not really to much else to say about this film and I wouldnt necessarily recommend this film but if u must see it then rent it. Got Em!!

Film Rating - 3 stars (out 5)

Agreed.

I keep forgetting the film even exists.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Surrogates - This film was ok but couldve been better. The story was kinda weak but liked the effects. The concept was actually cool as well but the execution couldve been better. Not really to much else to say about this film and I wouldnt necessarily recommend this film but if u must see it then rent it. Got Em!!

Film Rating - 3 stars (out 5)

that pretty much mirrors my review exactly--
not bad, not good either

[ForEver Blu]

All the Kings Men(2006)



A big budgeted and highly stylized BOREfest, featured several great actors who were woefully miscast. Anthony Hopkins looking bored and Sean Penn chewing scenery and hamming it up.





2 out of 5 stars.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by ForEver Blu

All the Kings Men(2006)



A big budgeted and highly stylized BOREfest, featured several great actors who were woefully miscast. Anthony Hopkins looking bored and Sean Penn chewing scenery and hamming it up.





2 out of 5 stars.

I never saw that movie, but I enjoyed the way you described your dislike.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That sums it up perfectly



_____


Today was the day I revisited Public Enemies


My feelings are pretty much how I remember them being from when I saw it at the midnight showing (though I didn't go back and check what I actually wrote back then).

Depp is great; Bale is solid.

The movie feels a lot longer than it is for some reason.

I'm not a fan of the pristine look for a movie set back then...it should not have been shot digital imo.

Rating - 4/5

[jhiggy23]

Hotel Rwanda (blu)

PQ: 4.5 (out of 5)

Surprisingly, very very good. Great depth.

AQ: 4 (out of 5)

Film: 4 stars (out of 4)


I watched it on blu a few weeks ago for the first time, but I've seen the film about half a dozen times. With all due respect squid, the assertion that Cheadle's performance is just okay is probably the thing I disagree with you on strongest. Even without knowing he nailed Rusesabagina, his performance is incredible. The gradual character change is what's most impressive, although his "emotional" moments are top-notch. The film was snubbed for best picture solely as a result of politics, simply stated. A film all should watch.

[jhiggy23]

Lincoln Lawyer (theater)

Film: 2 1/2 stars (out of 4)

An entertaining film, but ultimately I thought it was too linear in terms of emotions, meaning there was no significant rise or fall. Plus, I couldn't get over the egregious trial errors, although all films obviously have them. My girlfriend has read the books and says they're outstanding.