The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[AKORIS]

TRUE GRIT


finally got around to seeing this one!! Wanted to see in the theatre but never got there, got it on blu and never had a good opportunity to watch it until the other night.
Happy to say that the movie did not disappoint! A very different take on the original John Wayne classic that still followed the story but seemed like a totally "new" movie. Jeff Bridges was outstanding... again-- his interpretation of the role was sort of a mix between his own character in CRAZY HEART to SLING BLADE to the Duke's creation. Matt Damon was great as well-- he was almost unrecognizable playing someone unlike anything I'd ever seen him in. The young actress Hailee Steinfeld was pretty much universally praised and for good reason-- she was the heart of the movie and did an outstanding job!
After talking to several people that saw this when it came out-- several people had a hard time with the ending and more than one aspect of it. I confess that while watching the events of the last 15 minutes or so I was thinking to myself "hmmm, this is kind of depressing" but I also think far more memorable to the original's ending. This bittersweet ending sticks with you for days and in the end-- I was impressed with it--
This movie reminds me a bit of another excellent western-- Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN-- in the sense that it's a fine character study laced with memorable acting, beautiful photography, and an effective ending--
well worth seeing/owning

4/5 (very good to excellent)

[P@t_Mtl]

Sixteen Candles

USA 1984
Directed by John Hughes
With Molly Ringwald, Michael Schoeffling, Anthony Michael Hall
Format: HDTV

I truly enjoy most of the movies made by John Huges, then again who among us does not? (I am sure some don't but it's their lost). If I had to pick, I would say Sixteen Candles is by far my favorite. I don't see it as the best movie he ever made but it's my favorite, the one I always enjoy watching the most. The story is simple and rather cute (so I enjoy cute, I am made that way) and does have a great cast. I still recall seeing it in theaters the weekend it came out with my friends on Friday night in May of 1984. We had a great time watching it and even now 27 years later I still enjoy seeing it. I own the DVD but wanted to see the HD broadcast to get an idea how it was.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Atonement

[Show spoiler]114 minutes

Year: 2008
Director: Joe Wright
Writer: Christopher Hampton
Starring: Kiera Knightley, James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan, and Romola Garai

another one of those films that has all the individual categories down in some form of greatness - directing, story (for the most part), solid acting, score, cinematography, great atmosphere, wonderful costumes, et cetera... BUT, a film i don't love. i like it. at times i really like it. but it doesn't completely click.

right from the get go, the opening act (which lasts about 30 minutes) and sets up the rest of the film and shows why what happens, happens, just doesn't hook me. it just doesn't click for me. it still seems (after 3 viewings) like something is missing.

the first time i watched this it took way too long to understand what Briony was seeing and why she acted like she did. i didn't get what her reactions meant, (because i'm not a 13 year old girl ) and then we actually see what happens, i just said, "okay..." so on this viewing i knew what to expect and look for, but it still doesn't work as well as it could imo.

first time i watched it, i also thought the ending was hilariously cheap and one of those "bait and switch" type deals that either make films classics or disasters. luckily for Atonement, or maybe not, the ending doesn't throw the film in either territory. i do like how severely depressing the ending is

the biggest flaw of the film is that i just didn't care about any of the characters. and awesome, depressing ending aside (although how it gets there seems cheap in a way...) for as great as individual production pieces were, the film feels cold and disconnected, and at times seems more interested in fantastic set designs and architecture and clothing of the time than the actual people living in this world.

PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4/5

The Film: 3.5/5

This didn't do it for me at all.

[iam1bearcat]

No Country for Old Men

117 minutes

Year: 2007
Director: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writer: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin

*looks at open bottle of milk on table*

“That’s aggravating.”

“Oh, sheriff! We just missed him! We gotta circulate this on radio.”

“All right. What do we circulate? Looking for a man who has recently drunk milk?”



It’s amazing how your tastes and perceptions of things change over time. A mere three years ago when this arrived on DVD, I had a few friends who were talking this up as the greatest film of the last ten years or so. I was getting pretty pissed listening to all this rambling, so at midnight I drove top\ Wal-Mart, plopped down $20 for the DVD (good god… $20 for a DVD a mere three years ago.. ) and raced home to watch it so I could join in conversation about and to see if it what they said was true.

I didn’t know what to expect.

Two hours later, I knew one thing. Or, at least, I THOUGHT I knew one thing: all my friends were complete fools and I had just watched an okay at best film.

Why did I think that?

I can honestly tell you, for one reason or another, I was not expecting a dialogue heavy, yet at times very quiet, no dialogue for some stretches of time, slow burning drama delivered by the Coen brothers. And in 2008, I didn’t even know who the Coen brothers were (young and foolish I was at 20 years old ) I was expecting some heavy action, guns blazing, cursed filled bloody extravaganza through the desert.

Why?

No idea. Maybe I thought that’s what made a good film? Who knows

But what matters now is that I’ve seen No Country for Old Men about 15 times since that viewing. It’s another one of those films that is terrifically made in all areas, but for a long while, I didn’t love. For awhile, I barely liked it. But I kept finding myself coming back to it. And with each viewing I enjoy it more and more.

I can’t explain why I like it so much, I just do. Sure, the directing is top notch, yes the script and conversations are genius for the most part, and honestly, a few I don’t “get” (the gas station one in particular) if there is anything at all to “get”, the performances are some of the best of 2007, cinematography and atmosphere and well maintained and wonderfully fitting and the film always holds my attention no matter if it was the 5th time or the 15th time. And somehow I found this “boring” a mere three years ago?

I love how we follow three very different men who all virtually know of each other and know each other is either ahead of them or right behind them. And while at times they care, their own motivations drive them and they seemingly don’t care. They rarely show panic, or any emotion at all. Some may see this as a mistake or flaw since aside from conversations, these people almost display no human emotions, but I find it fascinating. Who’s gonna catch up to who first? Who’s gonna get the money? Who, if anyone, is gonna live? And when will someone slip up and make a costly mistake?

It’s a thriller without the overbearing music.
It’s a crime film without the mafia or gangsters.

It’s, I believe, a character piece, character study, of the people in this time (1980’s) and this particular setting. It’s about the drive of three distinct personalities all after their own goals. And what drives them each is something very different, but something they feel very strongly for.

Then of course, there is the ending. A love it / hate it ending that baffled me upon first viewing and I think, for me at least, the reason many hate it isn’t because of WHAT the ending is, but simply because at that point in time, it doesn’t FEEL like the ending. At least, doesn’t feel like an ending to a “normal” film, but NCFOM isn't a typical film.

I hear talk about how Bardem’s character is

[Show spoiler]the devil or evil incarnate

and other stuff similar to that and that he

[Show spoiler]lives because evil will always be in the world in some form

, and while that makes sense, it just doesn’t seem right to me for what all came before it. I think using the words

[Show spoiler]“evil” and “devil”

are too…. common and “over the top” for this type of film and what the Coens were showing us.

Again, I believe the ending just came at a time that didn’t feel right. It just felt like the film was near the third act, not at the end of it. And that’s why it took me, personally, a long while to get used to it and accept it. But of course, it differs for everyone.

I don’t have an issue with it winning Best Picture, but damn, 2007 was a BIG year for great films! (imo): Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, Michael Clayton, Gone Baby Gone… some very fine films indeed. Don’t know if it personally will be my #1 film of 2007 (when I remake that list) but it will surely be high up there.

Also, No Country for Old Men is currently second favorite Coen brothers film, right behind Fargo and ahead of Burn After Reading.

PQ: 5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Also, No Country for Old Men is currently second favorite Coen brothers film, right behind Fargo and ahead of Burn After Reading.

Those are my rankings too

[iam1bearcat]

The Island

130 minutes

Year: 2005
Director: Michael Bay
Writers: Caspian Tredwell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi, and Michael Clark Duncan

Some people will always dismiss Michael Bay as being a director who makes films with no substance. Just a lucky man who makes big bucks with over the top explosions, attractive women who can’t act, and a barely passable story for all his flicks. Well, chances are 99% of those people who rip apart every Bay film couldn’t do half of what he does, or have an eye for exciting, ridiculous stunts like he does. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the man knows how to make exciting, fun films.

Sadly however, his name will always be tied to Hollywood blockbusters (thanks in no large part to his Transformers trilogy *sigh*) and being someone who is all about style and no substance. And of course, there is the underhanded insult I hear far too often when someone mentions a film being to slow or boring: “what were you expecting? A Michael Bay film?” when he wasn’t even in the topic of conversation!

End of rant!

The Island is awesome. Probably my second favorite Bay film. I can say that now that I’ve watched it for the first time in years. I think it’s a good film to show Bay haters that yes, his films can have a plot. And yes, they can actually make you sit up and think. Is The Island a popcorn flick? Very much so. But is it big, dumb and goofy like some of his other work? Not at all. Easily his smartest film, but I’m not saying this is gonna go down as a sci-fi masterpiece or savior of intelligent film making. I just wish Bay would make more films like The Island

General plot is that humans are living in a very sterile world well into the future where there actions are closely monitored and they are taken care of indoors due to some type of outbreak and virus of sorts plagued the world. But when one citizen (Lincoln Six Echo - McGregor) begins to suspect things aren’t what they seem, he unravels a massive mystery / conspiracy about all of what’s going on. Nothing that hasn’t been done before, but The Island does it in a fun, not super serious way that is entertaining, engaging, thought provoking and coherent.

The film is slick. Super slick. Like, melted butter on your kitchen floor slick. Like getting into a bathtub with no shower stickies slick. And I love it.

The first act feels very much NOT like a Bay film. No explosions, no action, just story and character and atmosphere building. No jokes or sly humor!. Second act is where the “now this is a Michael Bay film” comments begin. Of course, completely ridiculous, absurd, unbelievable, illogical mayhem ensues, none of which of course pushes the story forward, but it’s fun as hell and looks and sounds amazing! and this is also where the classic Bay humor comes out (especially in full force in the hysterical bar scene ) and the third act also has more explosions and craziness to make up for the quiet first act.

Not the best in any genre, but one of my personal favorites.

Scarlett Johansson is as gorgeous as can be! And to think she was just 21 when she made this is astounding. Yes, Bay doesn’t ask or have a lot for his characters (especially women) to do in his films, but still, Scarlett’s role is easily his deepest and most complete for a female character and Johansson nails it.

McGregor is also very good.

Djimon is an excellent bad ass

Sean Bean was made for bad guy roles, was he not?

Steve Buscemi is fantastic in his small role, as is Michael Clark Duncan.

I think The Island also works very well because it was written by two men who would go on to have a big say in stories for Fringe and Lost (Kurtzman and Orci) so they definitely have a handle on structure and putting together a fun, easy to understand while still being deceptive in nature film.

Recommended to sci-fi, action, Bay fans and Bay haters. I’m not gonna say everyone is gonna love it, but it’s at least worth one viewing. However, for me, it will get tons of viewings since I own the blu I find it a fantastic film that looks and sounds excellent as well. Very happy purchase

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

No Country for Old Men

[Show spoiler]117 minutes

Year: 2007
Director: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writer: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin

*looks at open bottle of milk on table*

“That’s aggravating.”

“Oh, sheriff! We just missed him! We gotta circulate this on radio.”

“All right. What do we circulate? Looking for a man who has recently drunk milk?”



It’s amazing how your tastes and perceptions of things change over time. A mere three years ago when this arrived on DVD, I had a few friends who were talking this up as the greatest film of the last ten years or so. I was getting pretty pissed listening to all this rambling, so at midnight I drove top\ Wal-Mart, plopped down $20 for the DVD (good god… $20 for a DVD a mere three years ago.. ) and raced home to watch it so I could join in conversation about and to see if it what they said was true.

I didn’t know what to expect.

Two hours later, I knew one thing. Or, at least, I THOUGHT I knew one thing: all my friends were complete fools and I had just watched an okay at best film.

Why did I think that?

I can honestly tell you, for one reason or another, I was not expecting a dialogue heavy, yet at times very quiet, no dialogue for some stretches of time, slow burning drama delivered by the Coen brothers. And in 2008, I didn’t even know who the Coen brothers were (young and foolish I was at 20 years old ) I was expecting some heavy action, guns blazing, cursed filled bloody extravaganza through the desert.

Why?

No idea. Maybe I thought that’s what made a good film? Who knows

But what matters now is that I’ve seen No Country for Old Men about 15 times since that viewing. It’s another one of those films that is terrifically made in all areas, but for a long while, I didn’t love. For awhile, I barely liked it. But I kept finding myself coming back to it. And with each viewing I enjoy it more and more.

I can’t explain why I like it so much, I just do. Sure, the directing is top notch, yes the script and conversations are genius for the most part, and honestly, a few I don’t “get” (the gas station one in particular) if there is anything at all to “get”, the performances are some of the best of 2007, cinematography and atmosphere and well maintained and wonderfully fitting and the film always holds my attention no matter if it was the 5th time or the 15th time. And somehow I found this “boring” a mere three years ago?

I love how we follow three very different men who all virtually know of each other and know each other is either ahead of them or right behind them. And while at times they care, their own motivations drive them and they seemingly don’t care. They rarely show panic, or any emotion at all. Some may see this as a mistake or flaw since aside from conversations, these people almost display no human emotions, but I find it fascinating. Who’s gonna catch up to who first? Who’s gonna get the money? Who, if anyone, is gonna live? And when will someone slip up and make a costly mistake?

It’s a thriller without the overbearing music.
It’s a crime film without the mafia or gangsters.

It’s, I believe, a character piece, character study, of the people in this time (1980’s) and this particular setting. It’s about the drive of three distinct personalities all after their own goals. And what drives them each is something very different, but something they feel very strongly for.

Then of course, there is the ending. A love it / hate it ending that baffled me upon first viewing and I think, for me at least, the reason many hate it isn’t because of WHAT the ending is, but simply because at that point in time, it doesn’t FEEL like the ending. At least, doesn’t feel like an ending to a “normal” film, but NCFOM isn't a typical film.

I hear talk about how Bardem’s character is

[Show spoiler]the devil or evil incarnate

and other stuff similar to that and that he

[Show spoiler]lives because evil will always be in the world in some form

, and while that makes sense, it just doesn’t seem right to me for what all came before it. I think using the words

[Show spoiler]“evil” and “devil”

are too…. common and “over the top” for this type of film and what the Coens were showing us.

Again, I believe the ending just came at a time that didn’t feel right. It just felt like the film was near the third act, not at the end of it. And that’s why it took me, personally, a long while to get used to it and accept it. But of course, it differs for everyone.

I don’t have an issue with it winning Best Picture, but damn, 2007 was a BIG year for great films! (imo): Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, Michael Clayton, Gone Baby Gone… some very fine films indeed. Don’t know if it personally will be my #1 film of 2007 (when I remake that list) but it will surely be high up there.

Also, No Country for Old Men is currently second favorite Coen brothers film, right behind Fargo and ahead of Burn After Reading.

PQ: 5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

The Island

[Show spoiler]130 minutes

Year: 2005
Director: Michael Bay
Writers: Caspian Tredwell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi, and Michael Clark Duncan

Some people will always dismiss Michael Bay as being a director who makes films with no substance. Just a lucky man who makes big bucks with over the top explosions, attractive women who can’t act, and a barely passable story for all his flicks. Well, chances are 99% of those people who rip apart every Bay film couldn’t do half of what he does, or have an eye for exciting, ridiculous stunts like he does. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the man knows how to make exciting, fun films.

Sadly however, his name will always be tied to Hollywood blockbusters (thanks in no large part to his Transformers trilogy *sigh*) and being someone who is all about style and no substance. And of course, there is the underhanded insult I hear far too often when someone mentions a film being to slow or boring: “what were you expecting? A Michael Bay film?” when he wasn’t even in the topic of conversation!

End of rant!

The Island is awesome. Probably my second favorite Bay film. I can say that now that I’ve watched it for the first time in years. I think it’s a good film to show Bay haters that yes, his films can have a plot. And yes, they can actually make you sit up and think. Is The Island a popcorn flick? Very much so. But is it big, dumb and goofy like some of his other work? Not at all. Easily his smartest film, but I’m not saying this is gonna go down as a sci-fi masterpiece or savior of intelligent film making. I just wish Bay would make more films like The Island

General plot is that humans are living in a very sterile world well into the future where there actions are closely monitored and they are taken care of indoors due to some type of outbreak and virus of sorts plagued the world. But when one citizen (Lincoln Six Echo - McGregor) begins to suspect things aren’t what they seem, he unravels a massive mystery / conspiracy about all of what’s going on. Nothing that hasn’t been done before, but The Island does it in a fun, not super serious way that is entertaining, engaging, thought provoking and coherent.

The film is slick. Super slick. Like, melted butter on your kitchen floor slick. Like getting into a bathtub with no shower stickies slick. And I love it.

The first act feels very much NOT like a Bay film. No explosions, no action, just story and character and atmosphere building. No jokes or sly humor!. Second act is where the “now this is a Michael Bay film” comments begin. Of course, completely ridiculous, absurd, unbelievable, illogical mayhem ensues, none of which of course pushes the story forward, but it’s fun as hell and looks and sounds amazing! and this is also where the classic Bay humor comes out (especially in full force in the hysterical bar scene ) and the third act also has more explosions and craziness to make up for the quiet first act.

Not the best in any genre, but one of my personal favorites.

Scarlett Johansson is as gorgeous as can be! And to think she was just 21 when she made this is astounding. Yes, Bay doesn’t ask or have a lot for his characters (especially women) to do in his films, but still, Scarlett’s role is easily his deepest and most complete for a female character and Johansson nails it.

McGregor is also very good.

Djimon is an excellent bad ass

Sean Bean was made for bad guy roles, was he not?

Steve Buscemi is fantastic in his small role, as is Michael Clark Duncan.

I think The Island also works very well because it was written by two men who would go on to have a big say in stories for Fringe and Lost (Kurtzman and Orci) so they definitely have a handle on structure and putting together a fun, easy to understand while still being deceptive in nature film.

Recommended to sci-fi, action, Bay fans and Bay haters. I’m not gonna say everyone is gonna love it, but it’s at least worth one viewing. However, for me, it will get tons of viewings since I own the blu I find it a fantastic film that looks and sounds excellent as well. Very happy purchase

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

I have to agree totally with both. I thought The Island was MB best film.. No Country for Old Men is in a class of its own.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I think your review is dead-on! Totally agree

awesome! thanks Akoris!

Originally Posted by AKORIS

127 HOURS


Rented this one from Netflix-- I'd heard about it and thought it sounded interesting but due to the subject matter-- not a movie that would have much replay value-- and after seeing it I think I had the right idea--
This was a well made movie marred by some irritating directorial styles (making Tony Scott look restrained at times!) and a subject that is difficult to stretch out for a movie running time... I was losing interest a bit towards the end.
James Franco's performance and the cinematography get the highest marks. I was very impressed by Franco in the scenes where he was filming himself talking to friends and family-- very emotional and effective... his "solution" to finally escape was almost unwatcheable as I had heard. Overall well worth watching but not a film with replay value to me--

3/5 (good)

sorry you didn't enjoy it more Akoris but at least you got some enjoyment out of it (err... maybe "enjoyment" is the wrong word? ). i was really surprised by how good Franco was, especially since i think he is absolutely awful in the Spiderman trilogy he really has grown a lot.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Sixteen Candles

USA 1984
Directed by John Hughes
With Molly Ringwald, Michael Schoeffling, Anthony Michael Hall
Format: HDTV

I truly enjoy most of the movies made by John Huges, then again who among us does not? (I am sure some don't but it's their lost). If I had to pick, I would say Sixteen Candles is by far my favorite. I don't see it as the best movie he ever made but it's my favorite, the one I always enjoy watching the most. The story is simple and rather cute (so I enjoy cute, I am made that way) and does have a great cast. I still recall seeing it in theaters the weekend it came out with my friends on Friday night in May of 1984. We had a great time watching it and even now 27 years later I still enjoy seeing it. I own the DVD but wanted to see the HD broadcast to get an idea how it was.

sadly i was born too late in the 80's to enjoy most of the films from that decade while they were in theaters or really popular, but i've loved Sixteen Candles ever since i was about 15. same with The Breakfast Club.

i think the 80's created some of the best films of all time

Originally Posted by Steve46

Those are my rankings too

really? awesome! i didn't know you were such a big fan of Burn After Reading. the humor in BAR is a lot like what Fantastic Mr. Fox has (i think anyway) which is why i love it so much. some of my friends love it too, which i'm happy about. i thought they weren't gonna "get it" but luckily they did.

not a huge Coen brothers films, even though these three rank very highly (Fargo 5/5, NCFOM 4.5/5, BAR 4.5/5). might have to check out some of their other stuff when it hits blu.

edit*** i do have The Big Lebowski pre-ordered. forgot they made that. i watched it like 8 years ago and found it completely boring and way too long. but hell, i was 15 then and there are very few films i like now that i would have liked then, so i'm sure it's a safe blind buy. (calling it a blind buy since it's been so long). and the humor i liked then was cheap gross out humor like Van Wilder stuff.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

edit*** i do have The Big Lebowski pre-ordered. forgot they made that. i watched it like 8 years ago and found it completely boring and way too long. but hell, i was 15 then and there are very few films i like now that i would have liked then, so i'm sure it's a safe blind buy. (calling it a blind buy since it's been so long). and the humor i liked then was cheap gross out humor like Van Wilder stuff.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

sadly i was born too late in the 80's to enjoy most of the films from that decade while they were in theaters or really popular, but i've loved Sixteen Candles ever since i was about 15. same with The Breakfast Club.

i think the 80's created some of the best films of all time

I may be a bit biase since I was a teen in the early half of the decade but the greatest teen movies were done in the 80's in my opinion.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

No Country for Old Men

[Show spoiler]117 minutes

Year: 2007
Director: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writer: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin

*looks at open bottle of milk on table*

“That’s aggravating.”

“Oh, sheriff! We just missed him! We gotta circulate this on radio.”

“All right. What do we circulate? Looking for a man who has recently drunk milk?”



It’s amazing how your tastes and perceptions of things change over time. A mere three years ago when this arrived on DVD, I had a few friends who were talking this up as the greatest film of the last ten years or so. I was getting pretty pissed listening to all this rambling, so at midnight I drove top\ Wal-Mart, plopped down $20 for the DVD (good god… $20 for a DVD a mere three years ago.. ) and raced home to watch it so I could join in conversation about and to see if it what they said was true.

I didn’t know what to expect.

Two hours later, I knew one thing. Or, at least, I THOUGHT I knew one thing: all my friends were complete fools and I had just watched an okay at best film.

Why did I think that?

I can honestly tell you, for one reason or another, I was not expecting a dialogue heavy, yet at times very quiet, no dialogue for some stretches of time, slow burning drama delivered by the Coen brothers. And in 2008, I didn’t even know who the Coen brothers were (young and foolish I was at 20 years old ) I was expecting some heavy action, guns blazing, cursed filled bloody extravaganza through the desert.

Why?

No idea. Maybe I thought that’s what made a good film? Who knows

But what matters now is that I’ve seen No Country for Old Men about 15 times since that viewing. It’s another one of those films that is terrifically made in all areas, but for a long while, I didn’t love. For awhile, I barely liked it. But I kept finding myself coming back to it. And with each viewing I enjoy it more and more.

I can’t explain why I like it so much, I just do. Sure, the directing is top notch, yes the script and conversations are genius for the most part, and honestly, a few I don’t “get” (the gas station one in particular) if there is anything at all to “get”, the performances are some of the best of 2007, cinematography and atmosphere and well maintained and wonderfully fitting and the film always holds my attention no matter if it was the 5th time or the 15th time. And somehow I found this “boring” a mere three years ago?

I love how we follow three very different men who all virtually know of each other and know each other is either ahead of them or right behind them. And while at times they care, their own motivations drive them and they seemingly don’t care. They rarely show panic, or any emotion at all. Some may see this as a mistake or flaw since aside from conversations, these people almost display no human emotions, but I find it fascinating. Who’s gonna catch up to who first? Who’s gonna get the money? Who, if anyone, is gonna live? And when will someone slip up and make a costly mistake?

It’s a thriller without the overbearing music.
It’s a crime film without the mafia or gangsters.

It’s, I believe, a character piece, character study, of the people in this time (1980’s) and this particular setting. It’s about the drive of three distinct personalities all after their own goals. And what drives them each is something very different, but something they feel very strongly for.

Then of course, there is the ending. A love it / hate it ending that baffled me upon first viewing and I think, for me at least, the reason many hate it isn’t because of WHAT the ending is, but simply because at that point in time, it doesn’t FEEL like the ending. At least, doesn’t feel like an ending to a “normal” film, but NCFOM isn't a typical film.

I hear talk about how Bardem’s character is

[Show spoiler]the devil or evil incarnate

and other stuff similar to that and that he

[Show spoiler]lives because evil will always be in the world in some form

, and while that makes sense, it just doesn’t seem right to me for what all came before it. I think using the words

[Show spoiler]“evil” and “devil”

are too…. common and “over the top” for this type of film and what the Coens were showing us.

Again, I believe the ending just came at a time that didn’t feel right. It just felt like the film was near the third act, not at the end of it. And that’s why it took me, personally, a long while to get used to it and accept it. But of course, it differs for everyone.

I don’t have an issue with it winning Best Picture, but damn, 2007 was a BIG year for great films! (imo): Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, Michael Clayton, Gone Baby Gone… some very fine films indeed. Don’t know if it personally will be my #1 film of 2007 (when I remake that list) but it will surely be high up there.

Also, No Country for Old Men is currently second favorite Coen brothers film, right behind Fargo and ahead of Burn After Reading.

PQ: 5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

I've only seen it the one time, but that's the score I gave it.

It was definitely NOT the best film that year though imo.

Zodiac > Gone Baby Gone > No Country for Old Men > There Will Be Blood > Jesse James

Michael Clayton...I shut that off 30 minutes in, as I was almost bored to tears.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

The Island

130 minutes

Year: 2005
Director: Michael Bay
Writers: Caspian Tredwell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi, and Michael Clark Duncan

Some people will always dismiss Michael Bay as being a director who makes films with no substance. Just a lucky man who makes big bucks with over the top explosions, attractive women who can’t act, and a barely passable story for all his flicks. Well, chances are 99% of those people who rip apart every Bay film couldn’t do half of what he does, or have an eye for exciting, ridiculous stunts like he does. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the man knows how to make exciting, fun films.

Sadly however, his name will always be tied to Hollywood blockbusters (thanks in no large part to his Transformers trilogy *sigh*) and being someone who is all about style and no substance. And of course, there is the underhanded insult I hear far too often when someone mentions a film being to slow or boring: “what were you expecting? A Michael Bay film?” when he wasn’t even in the topic of conversation!

End of rant!

The Island is awesome. Probably my second favorite Bay film. I can say that now that I’ve watched it for the first time in years. I think it’s a good film to show Bay haters that yes, his films can have a plot. And yes, they can actually make you sit up and think. Is The Island a popcorn flick? Very much so. But is it big, dumb and goofy like some of his other work? Not at all. Easily his smartest film, but I’m not saying this is gonna go down as a sci-fi masterpiece or savior of intelligent film making. I just wish Bay would make more films like The Island

I've gone back and forth several times between this and Transformers as my favorite of his. In fact, I just watched Transformers last night
And then there is the awesomeness that is Armageddon

General plot is that humans are living in a very sterile world well into the future where there actions are closely monitored and they are taken care of indoors due to some type of outbreak and virus of sorts plagued the world. But when one citizen (Lincoln Six Echo - McGregor) begins to suspect things aren’t what they seem, he unravels a massive mystery / conspiracy about all of what’s going on. Nothing that hasn’t been done before, but The Island does it in a fun, not super serious way that is entertaining, engaging, thought provoking and coherent.

The film is slick. Super slick. Like, melted butter on your kitchen floor slick. Like getting into a bathtub with no shower stickies slick. And I love it.

The first act feels very much NOT like a Bay film. No explosions, no action, just story and character and atmosphere building. No jokes or sly humor!. Second act is where the “now this is a Michael Bay film” comments begin. Of course, completely ridiculous, absurd, unbelievable, illogical mayhem ensues, none of which of course pushes the story forward, but it’s fun as hell and looks and sounds amazing! and this is also where the classic Bay humor comes out (especially in full force in the hysterical bar scene ) and the third act also has more explosions and craziness to make up for the quiet first act.

Not the best in any genre, but one of my personal favorites.

If you had asked me during the first portion of this film who directed it, Michael Bay would never have come to mind.

[Show spoiler]He's taking a dump...in a can?!

Dood.

Scarlett Johansson is as gorgeous as can be! And to think she was just 21 when she made this is astounding. Yes, Bay doesn’t ask or have a lot for his characters (especially women) to do in his films, but still, Scarlett’s role is easily his deepest and most complete for a female character and Johansson nails it.

Also easily his most beautiful leading lady

McGregor is also very good.

Agreed

Djimon is an excellent bad ass

Djimon = Pure Awesomeness

Sean Bean was made for bad guy roles, was he not?

Sean Bean = King of Supporting Actors

Steve Buscemi is fantastic in his small role, as is Michael Clark Duncan.

Both were hilarious.

I think The Island also works very well because it was written by two men who would go on to have a big say in stories for Fringe and Lost (Kurtzman and Orci) so they definitely have a handle on structure and putting together a fun, easy to understand while still being deceptive in nature film.

They also wrote Star Trek ...and Transformers ...and Hawaii Five-0

Recommended to sci-fi, action, Bay fans and Bay haters. I’m not gonna say everyone is gonna love it, but it’s at least worth one viewing. However, for me, it will get tons of viewings since I own the blu I find it a fantastic film that looks and sounds excellent as well. Very happy purchase

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 4.5/5

Same score. I haven't bought the US release yet. I'm going to wait for it to hit $10 later on and then get it from Amazon.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

really? awesome! i didn't know you were such a big fan of Burn After Reading. the humor in BAR is a lot like what Fantastic Mr. Fox has (i think anyway) which is why i love it so much. some of my friends love it too, which i'm happy about. i thought they weren't gonna "get it" but luckily they did.

not a huge Coen brothers films, even though these three rank very highly (Fargo 5/5, NCFOM 4.5/5, BAR 4.5/5). might have to check out some of their other stuff when it hits blu.

Most of it is worth owning from those that I have seen. Some are superb. If you like that kind of humor, you will probably like Bottle Rocket, Darjeeling Limited and In Bruges. I'm betting you'll enjoy Lebowski a lot more now.

[Steve46]

Today's blog entry:

Mother and Child (drama)
Directed by Rodrigo Garcia
Starring Annette Bening, Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington and Samuel L. Jackson

Sony Pictures | 2009 | 127 min | Rated R | Released Dec 14, 2010



Video:
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1

Audio:
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1

Subtitles:
English, English SDH

Disc:
Single 50GB Blu-ray Disc

The Film 4.5/5

In the special features, director Rodrigo Garcia describes Mother and Child as "a drama for grown-ups" and he's exactly right. The film is aimed at people who enjoy emotional drama, and examining the connections between people. While I was watching, I found myself comparing the structure of the story to 21 Grams and Babel, only to find that the director of those films, Alejandro González Iñárritu, was listed as an executive producer.

The film follows three story arcs and ultimately brings them together.

The most interesting character is Karen (Bening) who had a baby girl when she was 14 and gave her up for adoption. We see how she cares for her own mother and puts her life on hold because of her. But on some level, she wonders what happened to her own child. She mentions in the opening minutes of the film that her daughter's birthday is coming up and she'll be 37.

We then see Elizabeth (Watts) applying for a job as a lawyer. She mentions that she was adopted and that her mother had her when she was 14. Her potential employer, Paul (Jackson), is impressed by her honesty and credentials and she gets the job.

A third woman, Lucy (Washington), is unable to have children of her own and is desperate to adopt. We see her and her husband interviewed by a nun to see whether they are a suitable couple.

The story shows how Karen and Elizabeth have been affected by never knowing each other:

Karen devotes her life to looking after her mother and working as a geriatric nurse. She has never been married. Her maid has a little girl and Karen resents having her show up at her house. It seems that she has distanced herself from children and resents people who have children in their lives. Her own loss was an event that she has never recovered from. She's abrupt and sometimes rude to people and ensures that she never gets close enough to men to develop any romantic feelings. Everything she does is designed to protect herself from any potential pain in the future.

Elizabeth is fiercely independent. She seduces Paul and is the dominant partner when they have sex. She's also happy to pursue married men and makes a move on one of her neighbors. As we learn more about her, it becomes clear how she's been affected by never knowing her mother. I won't reveal those details because it would ruin the story. She regularly moves around from one place to another and seems unwilling to be tied down. Although she has a lot of ambitious goals, they have to be achieved on her terms. She's not a very nice person, but maybe it's not completely her fault.

Lucy is willing to do almost anything to become a parent. She meets a young girl who wants to audition her to decide whether she's a suitable foster parent for the child she plans to give up for adoption. Some of the questions disturb her, but she answers them honestly. Her husband doesn't appear to be as enthusiastic about the process, but Lucy persists.

That's the setup. I can't give away anything else without ruining some of the surprises. All three women experience events which change them. Karen undergoes the biggest change and grows as a person throughout the story.

I made a point of seeing the 10 Best Picture nominations last year and enjoyed them all, but I would rank Mother and Child above five of them. The acting is strong across the board and I'm a little surprised that Bening wasn't nominated for this role rather than for her role in The Kids Are All Right. Mother and Child wouldn't work without her performance. We see her accepting her situation, reacting when an event changes it, and ultimately transforming herself into a different person. She shows a vast range of emotions and, although I greatly admire American Beauty, this might be her strongest performance to date.

Watts, Washington, Jackson and Jimmy Smits also turn in good performances and I believed in everything they did. Those that I haven't mentioned were great too.

I didn't hear a word about the film during its limited theatrical run. The marketing just didn't exist as far as I saw. I understand the reasoning and know that the audience for an emotional drama is small and growing smaller every year, but it pains me to see films like Mother and Child ignored. Will they eventually cease to be made so that we can have more sequels? Probably so. But I'll try to do my part and highlight those worthy of attention.

Video Quality 4.5/5
Mother and Child was shot digitally, but it doesn't detract from the overall look. Detail is strong and I didn't detect any flaws. There are a few releases with better picture quality, but this is right up there and you won't have any complaints.

Audio Quality 4/5
The DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 track does exactly what it is supposed to do. It's a quiet story, driven by dialogue, but everything sounds clear. The ambient sounds add to the experience, but don't expect your speakers to receive much of a workout. It's just not that kind of movie.

Special Features 2.5/5

All of the additional content is presented in full HD.

Deleted Scenes (3:43) - Three short scenes that didn't make it into the film.

Creating the Family Tree (13:39) - Director Rodrigo Garcia talks with some of the cast and crew and explains how the film came to be made.

Universally Connected (15:37) - An extension of the previous feature, but going into greater depth.

Trailer (2:10)

Previews

BD-Live

Mother and Child was one of the best dramas released in 2010. Anchored by a stellar performance from Bening, none of the acting disappoints. The title sounds boring and hardly anyone bothered seeing it, but fans of emotional drama shouldn't miss this one. There are quite a few surprises and deeper connections between some of the characters that I didn't mention for fear of spoiling the film. If action is your thing, give this a miss.

Overall score 4.5/5

[Foggy]

I'm watching this short film called Scenes from the Suburbs that's directed by Spike Jonze and from the music from Arcade Fire, is avaliable free for 2 days, it's about 30 mins long so I thought some of you guys might be interested in checking it out...

http://mubi.com/films/scenes-from-the-suburbs

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

.

Zodiac > Gone Baby Gone > No Country for Old Men > There Will Be Blood > Jesse James

You have everyone of your < facing in the wrong direction. Every single one.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I may be a bit biase since I was a teen in the early half of the decade but the greatest teen movies were done in the 80's in my opinion.

definitely agree. some definite magic in the 80's as far as teen movies go

Originally Posted by Diesel

I've only seen it the one time, but that's the score I gave it.

It was definitely NOT the best film that year though imo.

Zodiac > Gone Baby Gone > No Country for Old Men > There Will Be Blood > Jesse James

Michael Clayton...I shut that off 30 minutes in, as I was almost bored to tears.

i definitely agree that Zodiac is better. at least to me (and you). Gone Baby Gone was also very good, but i think i could watch NCFOM more often, which may bump it ahead for me. also, TWBB is ahead of NCFOM as well. no idea where Jesse James and Michael Clayton would be - two more films i love.

ugh. i don't think i can make lists anymore

I've gone back and forth several times between this and Transformers as my favorite of his. In fact, I just watched Transformers last night
And then there is the awesomeness that is Armageddon

for me, for now, Armageddon stays #1, followed closely by The Island. then, it's quite the drop off to Transformers, then another big drop off to The Rock. then another HUGE drop off to Bad Boys. and then a cliff the height of the Grand Canyon to Revenge of the Fallen

haven't seen Pearl Harbor or Bad Boys II yet. i think that's all of his films then... right?

If you had asked me during the first portion of this film who directed it, Michael Bay would never have come to mind.

[Show spoiler]He's taking a dump...in a can?!

Dood.

agreed. doesn't feel anything like a Bay film. maybe the slick cuts and massive amounts of browns and shiny oranges, but nothing else says "HEY! THIS IS A MICHAEL BAY FILM!"

Also easily his most beautiful leading lady

BY MILES AND MILES! no one else comes close. makes her much more attractive as well that she can actually act. unlike those pesky girls Bay insists on adding to those low budget robot movies he makes

Sean Bean = King of Supporting Actors

i haven't looked it up or anything, and i'm sure in at least one film he does, but i wonder if he

[Show spoiler]ever lives to the end of a film he's been in?

since he's ALWAYS the bad guy

They also wrote Star Trek ...and Transformers ...and Hawaii Five-0

yep and JJ Abrams also contributes of course to those films and the same shows and wrote the screenplay for Armageddon. found that to be very neat when i learned that a few years ago

Same score. I haven't bought the US release yet. I'm going to wait for it to hit $10 later on and then get it from Amazon.

right on! looks and sounds awesome. you have a lot to look forward to.

Originally Posted by Foggy

I'm watching this short film called Scenes from the Suburbs that's directed by Spike Jonze and from the music from Arcade Fire, is avaliable free for 2 days, it's about 30 mins long so I thought some of you guys might be interested in checking it out...

http://mubi.com/films/scenes-from-the-suburbs

hmmm...huge fan of Arcade Fire... not a huge fan of Spike Jonze... i wonder if this is a documentary type deal where he talks a lot and stuff or no...? hmm... decisions, decisions.

well, 30 minutes can't kill me. may check this out tonight. thanks Foggy!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

hmmm...huge fan of Arcade Fire... not a huge fan of Spike Jonze... i wonder if this is a documentary type deal where he talks a lot and stuff or no...? hmm... decisions, decisions.

well, 30 minutes can't kill me. may check this out tonight. thanks Foggy!

It's a proper short film, with characters and what not, you may like it, you may not, it was 30 mins decently killed to me though

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You have everyone of your < facing in the wrong direction. Every single one.

Diesel probably failed math class dozens of times because of this simple error and never understood why

[lDlisturb3d]

So i just finished

Aliens

I have to say that i like this one a little bit more than the original. James Cameron is a good director and possibly the best ACTION director in hollywood. This movie grabbed my attention a bit more but also made me wanna reflect back to the org. Overall this was good, a lot of misleading acting but overall fun.

4/5

Alien 3

It is what it is.... THE END. LOL I enjoyed it but it was a time passer, DAVID FINCHER really jacked this one up...

3/5

Now its time for the final show.

[iam1bearcat]

28 Days Later

108 minutes

Year: 2002 | 2003 (US release)
Director: Danny Boyle
Writer: Alex Garland
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Brendan Gleeson, Megan Burns, and Christopher Eccleston

The film that made me believe in the horror genre again.

The film that made me a fan of Danny Boyle.

The film that made me a fan of Cillian Murphy.

The film that legitimately scared me numerous times.

28 Days Later = masterpiece? Pretty darn close.

After an infection breaks out (an infection of “rage” as the scared to death scientist tells us), we wake up with Jim (Murphy) in an abandoned hospital. It appears something has happened as it is in disarray and no one is to be found outside or anywhere nearby. Dead silence. Trash everyone. A board full of notes for missing family members. Spooky, haunting score.

I was hooked!

Then the “zombies” that aren’t zombies arrive. And all hell breaks lose. Aggressive, hostile, relentless, vicious… and how Boyle films and shoots them is incredible. You really get the sense that these infected could beat the bloody hell out of the zombies in Dawn of the Dead or any other apocalypse film. These guys and gals mean BUSINESS.

What makes it scarier is the lack of weapons our heroes have. On top of that - they act like humans - they get tired, they make mistakes, they fight, they plead, they’re confused, they’re hungry and tired and always have to be on the move. And no place they go is ever safe from the infected.

It’s pure genius.

The audience never feels safe. Even in the third act, when we should feel safe, we don’t. Because of the people we meet? Because of the conditions? Because of what we know is out there? All three.

Then of course take into account that not just a bite will infect you. Any blood, saliva, a cut, a scrape, ANYTHING from them that gets in your blood stream (or mouth, eyes, ears, cuts…) infects you. And as Selena tells us - it only takes 30 seconds or so for a normal person to be turned.

Love it.

One of my favorite horror movies. Sure, it’s not #1, and sure, I find a few select films scarier, but that doesn’t take away the impact of 28 Days Later.

Love it. And love the sequel too, which is damn good.

PQ: 4/5 - don’t care what you say, this looks great because of what it was made with
AQ: 4.5/5 - startling!

The Film: 5/5