The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Nothing is better for morning viewing than...

The Shining (The European version of course, what do you think I am, some sort of American, pfft)

Oh that zany Jack Nicholson, always getting into axe murdering hijinks.

I enjoyed it, I'm not much of a fan of the Horror genre as the typical jump scares frustrate me to bits (the "oh tensions building...but not really because you know something is going to pop out anyway), however, I do love a good chilling story that gets under your skin, and that's exactly what this film does.

Sure, Kubrick's visual style sometimes gets a little too silly (I just lost it when I saw the guy with a crack down his head say "Good Party") and Jack Nicholson, although I love the guy in this film, and he is acting his heart out, he doesn't really do subtle and it would of been nice to see him progress more from nice guy to insane.

The only problem I really did have was with Shelley Duvall, she moves around like a wet sock puppet being pumped full of electricity. I get that she is supposed to be acting like she is going through a hell of her ordeal, but her hands just seemed like they couldn't keep still, everything she held in her hands seemed like it weighed a 100 kg and she was struggling what she was holding up.

But besides these points, it's perfectly paced, full of "WTF?!?!" moments, the kid is genuinely a good actor and sometimes very creepy. A lot is left to the imagination, which I really like, and the film is just does a good job at getting your spine to shiver.

10/10

[P@t_Mtl]

I am looking at the times of some of you guys posts and when you say you are watching movies, I was wondering something....

do you guys ever sleep??

Could be an age thing of course but by 9:30 pm I can't keep my eyes open. Of course I have to get up at 4 am for work but still. I am saying it might be an age thing because I remember just 15 years ago I could sometimes go days without sleeping more then a few hours here and there but I can't do that anymore.

[iam1bearcat]

Foggy, you may not be a dumb American but I'm starting to wonder if you know any other numbers besides 10... Because that's all you've been giving out lately!!!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am looking at the times of some of you guys posts and when you say you are watching movies, I was wondering something....

do you guys ever sleep??

Could be an age thing of course but by 9:30 pm I can't keep my eyes open. Of course I have to get up at 4 am for work but still. I am saying it might be an age thing because I remember just 15 years ago I could sometimes go days without sleeping more then a few hours here and there but I can't do that anymore.

No, when ever I go to bed, all I do is jump on it.

I also have a friend who only goes to sleep at 4 o'clock in the morning and gets up at 7 every day He says it's because he misses all the news when he sleeps.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Foggy, you may not be a dumb American but I'm starting to wonder if you know any other numbers besides 10... Because that's all you've been giving out lately!!!

I know I'm just good at picking films, it's about time I go out of my way to see a bad film

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am looking at the times of some of you guys posts and when you say you are watching movies, I was wondering something....

do you guys ever sleep??

Could be an age thing of course but by 9:30 pm I can't keep my eyes open. Of course I have to get up at 4 am for work but still. I am saying it might be an age thing because I remember just 15 years ago I could sometimes go days without sleeping more then a few hours here and there but I can't do that anymore.

Haha! I was just about to ask Foggy what time it was "over there" because it seems like when it's around 7 or so by me (right now its 5:47 am) Foggy never posts so that must be his night?

But I always sleep. Always. I'm 23 and have always adored sleeping. And now I work 7-3 M-F so I'm up from 5:30 on. But, I'm up today right now because I was scheduled to work an they just called me and said I had off so back to bed for me!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Foggy

No, when ever I go to bed, all I do is jump on it.

I also have a friend who only goes to sleep at 4 o'clock in the morning and gets up at 7 every day He says it's because he misses all the news when he sleeps.

what the hell! I need, and I mean NEED at LEAST 8 hours of sleep a night. If not, I'm a trainwreck the next day. Some days I'll come home from work, take a 3 hour nap and still be in bed out like a light a few hours later

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Haha! I was just about to ask Foggy what time it was "over there" because it seems like when it's around 7 or so by me (right now its 5:47 am) Foggy never posts so that must be his night?

But I always sleep. Always. I'm 23 and have always adored sleeping. And now I work 7-3 M-F so I'm up from 5:30 on. But, I'm up today right now because I was scheduled to work an they just called me and said I had off so back to bed for me!

It's nearly 12 o'clock here

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Nothing is better for morning viewing than...

The Shining (The European version of course, what do you think I am, some sort of American, pfft)

[Show spoiler]Oh that zany Jack Nicholson, always getting into axe murdering hijinks.

I enjoyed it, I'm not much of a fan of the Horror genre as the typical jump scares frustrate me to bits (the "oh tensions building...but not really because you know something is going to pop out anyway), however, I do love a good chilling story that gets under your skin, and that's exactly what this film does.

Sure, Kubrick's visual style sometimes gets a little too silly (I just lost it when I saw the guy with a crack down his head say "Good Party") and Jack Nicholson, although I love the guy in this film, and he is acting his heart out, he doesn't really do subtle and it would of been nice to see him progress more from nice guy to insane.

The only problem I really did have was with Shelley Duvall, she moves around like a wet sock puppet being pumped full of electricity. I get that she is supposed to be acting like she is going through a hell of her ordeal, but her hands just seemed like they couldn't keep still, everything she held in her hands seemed like it weighed a 100 kg and she was struggling what she was holding up.

[Show spoiler]But besides these points, it's perfectly paced, full of "WTF?!?!" moments, the kid is genuinely a good actor and sometimes very creepy. A lot is left to the imagination, which I really like, and the film is just does a good job at getting your spine to shiver.

10/10

Yeah, Duvall's acting is my only gripe with this film (She was actually nominated for a Razzie for this). But other than that, it's a solid horror flick. And as usual, the cinematography is superb.

I actually appreciated it more the second time I watched it. And this is the only Kubrick film I've seen that I liked entirely.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jvince

Yeah, Duvall's acting is my only gripe with this film (She was actually nominated for a Razzie for this). But other than that, it's a solid horror flick. And as usual, the cinematography is superb.

Seen most of the early Duvall movies from the 70's when she was suppose to be the "hit girl" and frankly if you ask me she should have received a Razzie for everyone of the movies she was in. Never quite understood the appeal for her, she is an horrible actress.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Seen most of the early Duvall movies from the 70's when she was suppose to be the "hit girl" and frankly if you ask me she should have received a Razzie for everyone of the movies she was in. Never quite understood the appeal for her, she is an horrible actress.

Lol... She can't be that bad. I've only seen her in The Shining and Popeye (but that one's kinda fuzzy, so I don't know). I love how she runs with a knife.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Nothing is better for morning viewing than...

The Shining

[Show spoiler](The European version of course, what do you think I am, some sort of American, pfft)

Oh that zany Jack Nicholson, always getting into axe murdering hijinks.

I enjoyed it, I'm not much of a fan of the Horror genre as the typical jump scares frustrate me to bits (the "oh tensions building...but not really because you know something is going to pop out anyway), however, I do love a good chilling story that gets under your skin, and that's exactly what this film does.

Sure, Kubrick's visual style sometimes gets a little too silly (I just lost it when I saw the guy with a crack down his head say "Good Party") and Jack Nicholson, although I love the guy in this film, and he is acting his heart out, he doesn't really do subtle and it would of been nice to see him progress more from nice guy to insane.

The only problem I really did have was with Shelley Duvall, she moves around like a wet sock puppet being pumped full of electricity. I get that she is supposed to be acting like she is going through a hell of her ordeal, but her hands just seemed like they couldn't keep still, everything she held in her hands seemed like it weighed a 100 kg and she was struggling what she was holding up.

But besides these points, it's perfectly paced, full of "WTF?!?!" moments, the kid is genuinely a good actor and sometimes very creepy. A lot is left to the imagination, which I really like, and the film is just does a good job at getting your spine to shiver.

10/10

What a way to start your day!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Haha! I was just about to ask Foggy what time it was "over there" because it seems like when it's around 7 or so by me (right now its 5:47 am) Foggy never posts so that must be his night?

But I always sleep. Always. I'm 23 and have always adored sleeping. And now I work 7-3 M-F so I'm up from 5:30 on. But, I'm up today right now because I was scheduled to work an they just called me and said I had off so back to bed for me!

Great time zone website. It helps me follow the GP races that take place all over the world. When its 5:00pm for you, its 11:00 pm for the Frogmeister.

http://www.worldtimezone.com/

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What a way to start your day!

The only way

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Kill Bill: Volume 2

[Show spoiler]
127 minutes

Year: 2004
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Michael Madsen, and Daryl Hannah

I can only imagine how many people felt disappointed in Kill Bill: Volume 2. IF, they loved Volume 1. Volume 1, for those who fell in love with it, offered lots of action, very cool directing, brightly colored, amazing set designs, and a tale of vengeance that showed us The Bride was relentless in her quest for Bill.

Volume 2 really, really, really slows things down. Which I’m sure people were not anticipating or in agreement with.

I loved the opening of showing us what happened before the massacre at the wedding chapel, but all other flash backs lasted way, way, way too long and were at times, boring.

I get it. We need to see how she learned her training. But it definitely didn’t need to take 15 or more minutes. And all that just to see her

[Show spoiler]punch her way out of a coffin!

Tarantino is known for long, drawn out scenes and Volume 2 features a bunch of these. The film is 127 minutes, but essentially it is like, 7 scenes! Of course, this doesn’t make the film bad. I particularly enjoyed the conversation between Sidewinder and Elle Driver and The Bride and Bill.

And I can only imagine how many people were pissed off / upset about the 45 minute conversation that goes on between them. After three hours of kicking ass, Tarantino pulls a twist and has The Bride

[Show spoiler]talk to Bill

. I personally didn’t mind this and I enjoyed most of their conversation, but I’m sure some were livid. But the conversation has valid reasons. Mainly,

[Show spoiler]that her baby is alive and with Bill so she can’t just run in and kill him, like she was planning to do.

And what a moment that is where we (and she) first discovers that

[Show spoiler]her daughter is alive and well.

Kind of a “heart in your throat” kind of moment tear-jerker there which I’m sure caught EVERYONE off guard. Nice touch

Overall, I like Volume 1 more than 2, but neither are films I love. They both have aspects I enjoy and both have flaws that bug me, and both feel like very different films.

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4/5

3/5

I actually do agree that this volume lacks the action, but I went into it knowing it'd be more yapping and less slashing. Even though the ending was anti-climactic, I loved the way it turned out. First time viewing,

[Show spoiler]the re-appearance of the Bride' daughter

caught me off-guard too.

It's a shame you didn't like these films, but at least you have them a second chance.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Body of Lies

[Show spoiler]
122 minutes

Year: 2008
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: William Monahan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe and Mark Strong

i knew exactly what i was getting when i bought this for $6. a well made (overall), slick political espionage thriller taking place in (surprise, surprise) the Middle East that would more than likely be pretty good but be nothing memorable or great.

and that's exactly what Body of Lies is.

well made, slick, has a nice shine to it, looks fantastic and features well known actors in okay roles doing typical CIA movie things. not saying it's bad, it's just, exactly what i knew was going to happen.

oddly enough, there isn't as much a sense of dread as i expected. Blood Diamond and The Kingdom, two other films that fit the type of genre that Body of Lies is, have much more tense, serious, frightening moments. this is kind of the "see, this place is scary, but not too scary" type of film.

DiCaprio was his typical DiCaprio self, solid but nothing more.
Crowe was a surprise here. he was super annoying as the "fat, lazy American slob who jumps to conclusions" and features a stupid and pointless Southern accent. no idea why he has that but it just served to piss me off even more. his character wasn't funny or well written. if Scott was directing, i guarantee Crowe wouldn't have been in this lackluster, forgettable role.

Mark Strong as Hani stole the show with his beady, tense eyes and super serious expression. he really seemed like a quiet bad ass, so that was good.

overall, the film isn't too complex or hard to follow, the bad guys do bad things and the good guys try to take down a high target on their list of terrorists. not very memorable, not very good, but definitely not bad.

definitely worth $6 and probably nothing more.
at least it looks absolutely marvelous!

PQ: 5/5
AQ: 4/5 - some quiet dialogue moments

3/5

I agree with this review; it's well-made and all, but something about it feels dull.

I did find Russel Crowe's character believable actually; a perfect contrast to the guy working in the field, getting real work done (and nearly getting his butt shot off in the process). I can see this kind of thing in my own work environment; workers go out and do their thing, fat lazy bosses sit behind their desks, BS with the higher-ups, make bad decisions...

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Al is on a mega WWII run...........

You betcha!

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

yep. yep. when that guy gets on a kick of something, there is no stopping him! i really respect him for that only thing i'm that serious / focused on to have a long run of is LOST. and if i get a new tv season of something i'm really invested in then i will finish it before anything else (like Breaking Bad June 7th! )

Thank you.

Can't say I have the same devotion to TV shows though. It's taking me half a year to get through these three seasons of the original "Star Trek." Movies suck up all the time.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

No, when ever I go to bed, all I do is jump on it.

I also have a friend who only goes to sleep at 4 o'clock in the morning and gets up at 7 every day He says it's because he misses all the news when he sleeps.

I've known some military folks who do this. Go to bed at 5am, get to work by 7 or 8 am. I have no idea how they do it.

Originally Posted by jvince

Yeah, Duvall's acting is my only gripe with this film (She was actually nominated for a Razzie for this). But other than that, it's a solid horror flick. And as usual, the cinematography is superb.

I actually appreciated it more the second time I watched it. And this is the only Kubrick film I've seen that I liked entirely.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Seen most of the early Duvall movies from the 70's when she was suppose to be the "hit girl" and frankly if you ask me she should have received a Razzie for everyone of the movies she was in. Never quite understood the appeal for her, she is an horrible actress.

To me she's on the same level as Uma Thurman; both ladies look hideous at some angles and okay at others. Duvall's pretty distinctive with her skinny figure and those bug-eyes.

I'll agree that she's a little annoying in "The Shining," but I thought she was perfect in "Popeye."

[Al_The_Strange]

The WWII marathon is on hiatus while I deal with more blind-buys and rentals.

Next greatest blind-buy: “I Could Read the Sky.”

I don’t know why the F I got this from the local thrift shop; I guess it looked interesting, and at the time an artsy film seemed like a good idea. I’m sure this film will appeal to fans of independent and artsy films; it appears to be of a close and personal nature in regards to the character and his life. I’m sure that the most high-brow of viewers will “get it” and think more highly of it than I can (you know, people like jhiggy ).

The minute I put the film in, I realized I couldn’t care less about it. The film is basically a montage of seemingly-random scenes all strung together with wild color effects, vignette framing, and lots of overlapping images (something that I find annoying when it’s done to excess, like it is here). Some old guy’s narrating his spiel during all this. So in the end, watching this film is about as much fun as listening to your grand pappy rambling on about his life’s story.

If there is a point or story here, I didn’t really catch what it is. Certainly don’t care anyway.

As a film, I hated it. Photography uses a lot of extreme close-ups on people and objects, which combined with all the artsy editing effects, make it unwatchable for me. I can see how this style could correlate to the old man’s memories and perception, but I still hate it. While the old man seemed genuinely okay for the old fart, his dialogue is pretty darn dry and monotonous, making it far less interesting. Everybody else in all the flashbacks struck me as a little exaggerated. Writing didn’t really appeal to me at all. Production value seems cheap; not that anything is fake-looking, as it does look like there’s plenty of effort put in to make it stand out above B-rated fare. But as it is, I still felt that some guys with camcorders and a few good sets and props could have made this.

1/5 (entertainment: 0.5/5, story: 0.5/5, film: 2/5)

Recommendation: Nah.

[iam1bearcat]

Casino

172 minutes

Year: 1995
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese
Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Sharon Stone

2nd ever viewing.

it's amazing to think that this movie is 172 minutes long. it's amazing, because it never feels like that long. which is a huge plus because some films feel way too long, even with shorter length, and some long films feel REALLY long. Casino though, has some type of magic about since it's slowly paced, but the camera is constantly moving about (but not in a frenetic way, almost like in a "sped up Kubrick way") and the film never once feels like it's dragging its feet.

i love the first two hours more than the last 52 minutes, but overall i really don't have much in the way of a complaint.

De Niro is excellent as the strong, silent type casino boss who has a logical head on his shoulders, but gets brought down by heart and feelings. Pesci is a radical maniac who rushes his judgment and is incredibly dangerous to his enemies AND his friends because of the problems he risks. they're polar opposites, yet friends who grew up together. but, through money and mainly greed, the two grow apart because of the business, egos, the same woman, and personal preferences.

the best part is Pesci seems like he's allowed to really let loose and be as crazy as he wants. and he soaks up every second of screen time with foul language, screaming fits, bloody good violence and an anger management problem that would make Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson squirm ()

i guess if i had to make a complaint, it's that we are pretty much told that Nicky (Pesci) is gonna eventually turn on Ace (De Niro) and that Ginger (Stone) is gonna cheat on Ace. so, when these things happen i was never really surprised (even on first viewing it wasn't a surprise) by the events and it didn't change the tone or feel of the film. not a complaint though since with these types of films that action is... expected... i mean, where else would the drama come from?

everyone seems to compare this to GoodFellas, which i don't really get besides the two main actors and Scorsese directing, but i can't comment on which i like more because i barely remember GoodFellas (another film that has had limited viewings and i haven't seen it in years), but Casino will be hard for any mafia / gangster film to top.

i enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than The Godfather, which felt like it took forever to finish and is a whole minute longer, and went at a much brisker pace.

i also loved the dark humor and violence of the film. there isn't a whole lot of violence, but when there is violence it really hits home because it's sooooo awesomely brutal and not done in a typical fashion (guns). there are a plethora of bats, random household objects like phones, fists, hammers and buckets of good 'ol blood

highly recommended, but don't go in expecting a mafia heavy film or an action film. it is dialogue heavy and character driven and almost hypnotized me while watching. very glad i now own it. and got it for a damn steal at Best Buy ($5.41 ) while looking and sounding great

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4/5

4.5/5

[CZAR]

The Glass Shield - An interesting film about a corrupt police department in LA. Not a bad film at all and its crazy on how messed up a department can be. I do recommend at least one viewing of the film. Got Em!!

Film Rating - 3 1/2 stars (out of 5)

[Foggy]

The Hurt Locker

My streak of 10/10 comes to an end sadly with this film

Not to say it's a bad one, but just an one.

The best thing you can say about it is that it has a lot of tension cake, with a lot of intense icing, and some jam as well, cause jam is cool Every time they walk out into the war zone, you start to go, oh shit, any thing could go down now. And for the most part, what goes down is usual !!!SPOILER!!! not very nice, which is effective for the most part, but looses it's edge by the final 20 mins.

It's also filled full of very unusually stuff, like after an encounter with some snipers (By the way, not happy all the British solders get sniped down with ease, yet the Americans can miss a thousand times, fath around with spitting and cleaning bullets and yet the other snipers fail to take a shot through all of this) they decide it's a good time to have a Capri-sun and just a random piece of dialogue at the start involving two of the solders deciding on their weed selling business.

Oh and if you was wondering what happened to Kate after Lost, this film has the answer

And it has it typical action movie, Homo-erotic masculinity meat head scene in the middle

The problems I have with the film is that I can not remember any of the characters names, which is pretty bad when you consider it is on their uniforms the whole way through. They seem like they have nothing to them, the main newbie guy is a rebel, because he just likes to be dangerous. The black dude was looking after all his team by any means possible, and doesn't like newbie guy. The other guy was a bit of a ***** and is too nice. That's all there is too them, nothing interesting, just a tiny bit of dimension to cause some dramatic tension through the film, which never feels to pay off.

I'm also not a fan of the camera work. It is always trying to have it's cake and eat it (not the cake from before though, better make that clear), it's trying to sell you on this being completely factual, this is real life, this is what happens. Yet every now and again it'll do some rubbish stylized slow motion shot of a shell casing hitting the sand or rubble flying off a ruined car, and all it does is take you out of the moment, why? Cuz it kwwl

It's worth watching for the experience and edge of your seat-ness. But not a film that will stay with you because it's powerful like the filmmakers felt like they were going for.

7/10