The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

OH MY GOD

Originally Posted by killowertz

Glad to see that you're back, surf. Also, I agree with your review of Fish Tank. I blind bought it recently and loved it.

haha, great to be back guys!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I'm in the minority in the forum, as HP 1-2 are my favorites! They bring out the kid in me - Harry is young, he seems joyful and happy to be at Hogwarts. By part 5, he looks like he's going to work on Monday. Yes, there are valid reasons why he's sad/depressed, but I just prefer HP 1-2 because they are what make HP unique - while the rest get too dark and start to taste and smell too much like films in the overcrowded dark-magic genre, like Underworld.

I'm with you, I don't think Harry Potter 1 holds up quite as well, but Chamber of Secrets is good. It's also good to see you back Surfdude

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

[Show spoiler]
ok. ok. my bad. i took a 8 month leave of absence. i had to work crazy hours and i just cant do this site in moderation...i'm either on here hours every day or none at all. i can't do inbetween. i can't log on here for 5 minutes or even 30 minutes per day...this place is too damn addicting!!! i couldn't fit work and the site in at once.

i should have given you guys a heads up! next time I will! i may have to work more soon but i'll let you guys know if i have to dip out!!

glad to be back!!

Welcome back!

Now we expect a review from every single movie you've seen since eight months ago. Aaaannnnddd...go!

[surfdude12]

Here is another I forgot:

Psycho (1960)

-from the opening score, I was honestly gripped in suspense.
-I had only seen it once before about 2 years ago, and didn't remember every detail, so this re-view was almost like a first viewing.
-one thing struck me: I love how Hitchcock used Janet Leigh and had her almost walking and talking in a robotic mode. That seems to be a universal Hitchcock technique: blonde + robotic movements = hot and scary at the same time!!! I can't explain it. SHe was hot and her expressions were freaking me out at the same time.
-one sequence that FREAKED ME OUT: she is at the rental car place trying to switch cars (

[Show spoiler]to get away from the law

) and the cop who talked to her earlier shows up. but he doesnt enter the rental lot. he parks across the street. he gets out of the car. but he doesnt' walk across the street. he just casually leans against his car, across the street, and STARES AT HER. EEEEEEKKKKK. why is this otherwise very simple scene scarier than any blood or gore scene you could show me? I'm literally watching HItchcock's framing of the cop across the street staring at her and I'm FREAKING THE &$#( OUT!!!!!
-I really missed a lot of detail on the direction on the first viewing. For example, check out this attention to detail: Leigh is pulling up to the Bate's Motel in the rain. We can see that she got off the highway and there is NOTHING anywhere and suddenly this motel pops up, so its obviously an isolated place....data point #1 to freak us out. Then what does Hitchcock do? He puts the camera INSIDE the car, looking out the windshield as she pulls up to the Bate's Motel...but its still raining so hard that the rain is blocking our view of the "Bate's Motel" lettering. The wipers on the windshield wipe the rain away for a mere 0.5 seconds. I read "Motel" but couldn't make out Bates before the rain blocks my view again. I have to wait for the next pass when the wipers wipe the rain away and finally see "Bate's" while squinting!
-What's my point going through all this? Hitchcock puts us in her shoes by having us have to squint and make out the lettering on the sign as the wipers go through cycles. I don't know...I just rarely feel like I'm in the characters head like I was there...terrified on where I am, terrified that I dont know what this place is, etc etc
-another scene was when the detective looks up at the motel and sees

[Show spoiler] the mother in the window

at night. on the first viewing , that FREAKED ME OUT. it still did here, even though i knew it was coming.
-finally, i loved the final scene where

[Show spoiler]the mother's skeleton is on the chair in the basement, the sister finds it and then behind her Leigh's boyfriend and Bates fight and they hit the light, which swings back and forth, and Hitchcock focuses on the skull of the mom, which is illuminated from every angle as the light swings in the background. you see every cavity of the skull illuminate at different stages of the light swing...FREAKY!!!!!!

PQ and AQ are great for an older film, 4/5

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Here is another I forgot:

Psycho (1960)

-from the opening score, I was honestly gripped in suspense.
-I had only seen it once before about 2 years ago, and didn't remember every detail, so this re-view was almost like a first viewing.
-one thing struck me: I love how Hitchcock used Janet Leigh and had her almost walking and talking in a robotic mode. That seems to be a universal Hitchcock technique: blonde + robotic movements = hot and scary at the same time!!! I can't explain it. SHe was hot and her expressions were freaking me out at the same time.
-I really missed a lot of detail on the direction on the first viewing. For example, check out this attention to detail: Leigh is pulling up to the Bate's Motel in the rain. We can see that she got off the highway and there is NOTHING anywhere and suddenly this motel pops up, so its obviously an isolated place....data point #1 to freak us out. Then what does Hitchcock do? He puts the camera INSIDE the car, looking out the windshield as she pulls up to the Bate's Motel...but its still raining so hard that the rain is blocking our view of the "Bate's Motel" lettering. The wipers on the windshield wipe the rain away for a mere 0.5 seconds. I read "Motel" but couldn't make out Bates. I have to wait for the next pass when the wipers wipe the rain away and finally see "Bate's" while squinting.
-What's my point going through all this? Hitchcock puts us in her shoes by having us have to squint and make out the lettering on the sign as the wipers go through cycles. I don't know...I just rarely feel like I'm in the characters head like I was there...terrified on where I am, terrified that I dont know what this place is, etc etc
-another scene was when the detective looks up at the motel and sees

[Show spoiler] the mother in the window

at night. on the first viewing , that FREAKED ME OUT. it still did here, even though i knew it was coming.
-finally, i loved the final scene where

[Show spoiler]the mother's skeleton is on the chair in the basement, the sister finds it and then behind her Leigh's boyfriend and Bates fight and they hit the light, which swings back and forth, and Hitchcock focuses on the skull of the mom, which is illuminated from every angle as the light swings in the background. you see every cavity of the skull illuminate at different stages of the light swing...FREAKY!!!!!!

PQ and AQ are great for an older film, 4/5

Welcome back.

Psycho is a brilliant film. Think of the impact when some of those now familiar horror staples had never been used before. Imagine seeing it without knowing any of its secrets (as Hitchcock intended).

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I was rather exhausted last night, so what do I do? I decide to watch my next greatest Criterion blind-buy, running the risk of either becoming mesmerized or bored to the point of falling asleep.

“Les Diaboliques,” aka “The Devils.”

I went into this expecting some kind of “whodunit” mystery; I didn’t realize that this was less of a murder mystery (since we’re following the murderers anyway) and more of a suspense thriller. The movie’s plot structure, narrative, and overall style reminded me greatly of “Psycho,” and there was one part that greatly resembled a scene in “North by Northwest.” My God, even Alfred Hitchcock drew inspiration from somewhere else!

“Les Diaboliques” is every bit as thrilling and well-crafted as a Hitchcock thriller. It’s pretty well-paced, with enough solid dialogue and eventful scenes to keep it interesting. Some scenes generated good suspense and others invoked a sense of mystery; the film overall keeps you going to the next scene.

[Show spoiler]The story for this is quite interesting. Its characters are strong and relatable; right away, I could get a feel for who they are and what their situations were. A little twist in the middle keeps you (and the characters) guessing to the end, which presents a clever little explanation to the mystery (I saw it coming in the last few minutes ).

I could tell you what happens, but there's a little note at the end of the film that made me promise not to.

The film is splendid, showing quality photography and editing. Acting is strong all around, and the writing is good. Production value looks decent, with swell sets, props, and costumes. Music is pretty good too.

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

Recommendation: Yes. Subtitle haters be damned.

[Show spoiler]This Blu-Ray looks nice and clean, with good contrast levels. Some scenes look a little soft and hazed out, but it is still decently sharp and detailed throughout. Sound quality seems clean, clear, and crisp.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5



Incidentally, this was the first film ever reviewed in this thread...

I love this movie way more than anything I've seen from Hitchcock, even Rear Window (which is in my opinion, his best film and the only one I'd consider owning. I know, blasphemy).

[Al_The_Strange]

^^^ Right on!
--------------------
“The Time Machine” 1960.

Like the original book by HG Wells, this movie is a quaint, classic piece of science fiction. It approaches the ideas of time travel with a fresh and original perspective, effectively exploring how time-travelling could work and what it could look like. Even after all these years, it’s pretty darn cool watching flowers grow, wither, and die within seconds. Or watching the sun speed by the windows. Or watching buildings grow and shrink instantly. Many of these scenes remain scientifically plausible, as the film shows the natural cycles of the Earth, the cycles of erosion, and ultimately the progress of humanity. After the initial novelty of the time travelling, the character spends some time exploring a fantastic distant future, and the adventure that ensues is quite interesting and thrilling. The only real negatives are that it takes a little bit of time to build momentum, and the movie is rather dated and a little cheesy.

The story is pretty swell. I can’t say that the characters are terribly well-developed (if anything, they’re stereotypical Victorian Brits). But the story has a solid premise, plenty of cool ideas, and in the last act, it sets up a neat little mythos of its own. The evolution of mankind into the Eloi and the Morlocks is a pretty cool and somewhat insightful view of the future (we speculated that people today may be turning into the Eloi, thanks to modern technology, substandard education, and falling moral standards). This split in humanity ultimately represents the splitting of the human spirit, underscoring the eternal struggles of human war and survival.

As the film went on, we became aware of many similarities with various other sci-fi films. Their demonstration of the time machine reminded me a lot of “Back to the Future,” the futuristic wars and the downfall of society resembled the ideas in “Planet of the Apes,” the Eloi being hypnotized reminded us of “Logan’s Run,” the Morlocks agenda reminded us of “Soylent Green,” among others. It made us wonder if this film was the progenitor of all these sci-fi classics. At the very least, “The Time Machine” is as worthwhile as all these others.

The film is well-filmed, with quality photography and editing. Special effects are slick for their time and conceptually cool, but are quite dated. Acting is not bad and the writing is good. Production value features solid sets, props, and costumes. Music is okay.

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

Recommendation: Yes.



Okay, I had a thought about the physics of this thing. Not that I really believe in time travel in the first place; the idea of travelling to a future that’s never happened and a past that’s already been lost just never seemed to make much sense to me. But in this movie, the time machine sits in the same space all the time, and moves only through the fourth dimension. The movie (and the original book) assumes that the machine’s space is relative to the Earth, so the machine sits in the same house and the same grassy field all the time, right? But realistically, wouldn’t the machine be independent of the Earth? In which case, shouldn’t the Earth always be moving back and forth, away and then back toward the machine, as it completes its yearly orbit? And then the solar system and the galaxy is always in motion too, so shouldn’t everything be moving away from the machine? My God, the man could have stopped in the middle of deep space and died!

[Foggy]

I've decided my movie watching has gone a bit down the drain, I'm going to hop back on the horse and watch Akira tonight regardless of the time

[jhiggy23]

surfdude is back! granted, i've been gone for months too.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

surfdude is back! granted, i've been gone for months too.

You haven't been gone long enough!

[Show spoiler] I kid, I kid

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Welcome back!

Now we expect a review from every single movie you've seen since eight months ago. Aaaannnnddd...go!

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Here is another I forgot:

Psycho (1960)

[Show spoiler]-from the opening score, I was honestly gripped in suspense.
-I had only seen it once before about 2 years ago, and didn't remember every detail, so this re-view was almost like a first viewing.
-one thing struck me: I love how Hitchcock used Janet Leigh and had her almost walking and talking in a robotic mode. That seems to be a universal Hitchcock technique: blonde + robotic movements = hot and scary at the same time!!! I can't explain it. SHe was hot and her expressions were freaking me out at the same time.
-one sequence that FREAKED ME OUT: she is at the rental car place trying to switch cars (

[Show spoiler]to get away from the law

) and the cop who talked to her earlier shows up. but he doesnt enter the rental lot. he parks across the street. he gets out of the car. but he doesnt' walk across the street. he just casually leans against his car, across the street, and STARES AT HER. EEEEEEKKKKK. why is this otherwise very simple scene scarier than any blood or gore scene you could show me? I'm literally watching HItchcock's framing of the cop across the street staring at her and I'm FREAKING THE &$#( OUT!!!!!
-I really missed a lot of detail on the direction on the first viewing. For example, check out this attention to detail: Leigh is pulling up to the Bate's Motel in the rain. We can see that she got off the highway and there is NOTHING anywhere and suddenly this motel pops up, so its obviously an isolated place....data point #1 to freak us out. Then what does Hitchcock do? He puts the camera INSIDE the car, looking out the windshield as she pulls up to the Bate's Motel...but its still raining so hard that the rain is blocking our view of the "Bate's Motel" lettering. The wipers on the windshield wipe the rain away for a mere 0.5 seconds. I read "Motel" but couldn't make out Bates before the rain blocks my view again. I have to wait for the next pass when the wipers wipe the rain away and finally see "Bate's" while squinting!
-What's my point going through all this? Hitchcock puts us in her shoes by having us have to squint and make out the lettering on the sign as the wipers go through cycles. I don't know...I just rarely feel like I'm in the characters head like I was there...terrified on where I am, terrified that I dont know what this place is, etc etc
-another scene was when the detective looks up at the motel and sees

[Show spoiler] the mother in the window

at night. on the first viewing , that FREAKED ME OUT. it still did here, even though i knew it was coming.
-finally, i loved the final scene where

[Show spoiler]the mother's skeleton is on the chair in the basement, the sister finds it and then behind her Leigh's boyfriend and Bates fight and they hit the light, which swings back and forth, and Hitchcock focuses on the skull of the mom, which is illuminated from every angle as the light swings in the background. you see every cavity of the skull illuminate at different stages of the light swing...FREAKY!!!!!!

PQ and AQ are great for an older film, 4/5

Uh-oh...you weren't here when I watched it and...eh, I'll leave it up to Squid to mention it

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

^^^ Right on!
--------------------
“The Time Machine” 1960.

[Show spoiler]Like the original book by HG Wells, this movie is a quaint, classic piece of science fiction. It approaches the ideas of time travel with a fresh and original perspective, effectively exploring how time-travelling could work and what it could look like. Even after all these years, it’s pretty darn cool watching flowers grow, wither, and die within seconds. Or watching the sun speed by the windows. Or watching buildings grow and shrink instantly. Many of these scenes remain scientifically plausible, as the film shows the natural cycles of the Earth, the cycles of erosion, and ultimately the progress of humanity. After the initial novelty of the time travelling, the character spends some time exploring a fantastic distant future, and the adventure that ensues is quite interesting and thrilling. The only real negatives are that it takes a little bit of time to build momentum, and the movie is rather dated and a little cheesy.

The story is pretty swell. I can’t say that the characters are terribly well-developed (if anything, they’re stereotypical Victorian Brits). But the story has a solid premise, plenty of cool ideas, and in the last act, it sets up a neat little mythos of its own. The evolution of mankind into the Eloi and the Morlocks is a pretty cool and somewhat insightful view of the future (we speculated that people today may be turning into the Eloi, thanks to modern technology, substandard education, and falling moral standards). This split in humanity ultimately represents the splitting of the human spirit, underscoring the eternal struggles of human war and survival.

As the film went on, we became aware of many similarities with various other sci-fi films. Their demonstration of the time machine reminded me a lot of “Back to the Future,” the futuristic wars and the downfall of society resembled the ideas in “Planet of the Apes,” the Eloi being hypnotized reminded us of “Logan’s Run,” the Morlocks agenda reminded us of “Soylent Green,” among others. It made us wonder if this film was the progenitor of all these sci-fi classics. At the very least, “The Time Machine” is as worthwhile as all these others.

The film is well-filmed, with quality photography and editing. Special effects are slick for their time and conceptually cool, but are quite dated. Acting is not bad and the writing is good. Production value features solid sets, props, and costumes. Music is okay.

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

Recommendation: Yes.

Woo!

I believe I gave it the same score back when I watched it...and I think we discussed it (and the 2002 one I watched in the same span of a few days) then

Okay, I had a thought about the physics of this thing. Not that I really believe in time travel in the first place; the idea of travelling to a future that’s never happened and a past that’s already been lost just never seemed to make much sense to me. But in this movie, the time machine sits in the same space all the time, and moves only through the fourth dimension. The movie (and the original book) assumes that the machine’s space is relative to the Earth, so the machine sits in the same house and the same grassy field all the time, right? But realistically, wouldn’t the machine be independent of the Earth? In which case, shouldn’t the Earth always be moving back and forth, away and then back toward the machine, as it completes its yearly orbit? And then the solar system and the galaxy is always in motion too, so shouldn’t everything be moving away from the machine? My God, the man could have stopped in the middle of deep space and died!

If I remember correctly, didn't he get knocked unconscious by something in the film while traveling? Or was it just before he began moving even more into the future? I don't recall if we ever saw him get wet from rain, burnt from sun or anything else while traveling. If none of the above happened, you would be correct, and that sucker should have ended up in deep space when he stopped traveling.

This movie randomly came up in my class yesterday. The professor was making some sort of example, that I don't remember because he rambles so much, and he said "Its like that HG Wells movie The Time Machine. Who's seen it?" I was the only one who raised my hand, everyone else looked like, "What the hell are you talking about? "

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

surfdude is back! granted, i've been gone for months too.

Higgy AND Surfdude posting on the same page and withing 24 hours of each other?! Next thing you know Disturbed and CZAR will pop up

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Higgy AND Surfdude posting on the same page and withing 24 hours of each other?! Next thing you know Disturbed and CZAR will pop up

The real icing on the cake would be if Sussudio popped in

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Foggy

The real icing on the cake would be if Sussudio popped in

The internet would explode

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Okay, I had a thought about the physics of this thing. Not that I really believe in time travel in the first place; the idea of travelling to a future that’s never happened and a past that’s already been lost just never seemed to make much sense to me. But in this movie, the time machine sits in the same space all the time, and moves only through the fourth dimension. The movie (and the original book) assumes that the machine’s space is relative to the Earth, so the machine sits in the same house and the same grassy field all the time, right? But realistically, wouldn’t the machine be independent of the Earth? In which case, shouldn’t the Earth always be moving back and forth, away and then back toward the machine, as it completes its yearly orbit? And then the solar system and the galaxy is always in motion too, so shouldn’t everything be moving away from the machine? My God, the man could have stopped in the middle of deep space and died!

hmmm I'll have to watch this now. I am somewhat familiar with Physics (studied in college, no expert but somewhat knowledgeable) and can tell you that future time travel is theoretically possible, but not past time travel, at least according to Einstein's equations. Picture a bouncing basketball on a train, that bounces up and down every second and hits the dudes hand on the train every second. But that is ON THE TRAIN. What does it look like to US OFF THE SIDE OF THE TRACK? The ball isn't going up and down! Its zig-zagging down the track! Its going up and down every 1.1 seconds (according to our clock)! The dude is (technically) traveling into the future. Why? Because in a year from now (TO US), it'll be 13 months (TO HIM). In reality, it wouldn't be 13 months to him, it would be more like 12.000000000000000000000001 months, so the difference wouldn't be noticed. To have a big difference, the train would have to be going at about 185,000 miles per hour. But the analogy doesn't change: the faster you go, the more the basketball zigs, and the longer each "second" is to us on the side of the track.
Planet of the Apes (1968) intro where Heston talks for the first few minutes actually is pretty accurate.
That movie sounds like its discussing relative reference frames, which is heading in the right direction. I'll have to check it out.

[Steve46]

The Time Machine and War of the Worlds were very imaginative for books published in 1895 and 1898.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

[Show spoiler]
ok. ok. my bad. i took a 8 month leave of absence. i had to work crazy hours and i just cant do this site in moderation...i'm either on here hours every day or none at all. i can't do inbetween. i can't log on here for 5 minutes or even 30 minutes per day...this place is too damn addicting!!! i couldn't fit work and the site in at once.

i should have given you guys a heads up! next time I will! i may have to work more soon but i'll let you guys know if i have to dip out!!

glad to be back!!

You gave us all quite a scare.

You think you can just waltz back in here and throw some hugs around and everything becomes instantly rosey again?

I think you need to re-up on your membership dues in order to regain your posting privelages.

I'll take the Sucekr Punch combo pack. I'll PM my address.













Glad you are OK.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

surfdude is back! granted, i've been gone for months too.

Yeah, but nobody misses you.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

glad to be alive! LOL. I guess I'll do a quick review catch-up.

2. Fish Tank 5/5

[Show spoiler]a 2009 film but I watched it in 2011. perhaps the best film I saw in 2011. incredible realism of a young girl growing up in england. Like "400 Blows" with some aspects of "Revanche" (i won't spoil it if you haven't seen it). pm me if you have and want to know my take. incredible script! the twists and turns were incredibly unpredictable! so original and real that i watched it 3 times and still was just as entertained on viewing #3 as viewing #1. love love love it! cinematography A+

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Fish Tank

2009 NR 122 minutes

Netflix synopsis: (which is pretty good, actually)

The life of hot-tempered teen outcast Mia (Katie Jarvis) takes an unexpected turn when her mother, Joanne (Kierston Wareing), brings home a handsome and mysterious boyfriend named Connor (Michael Fassbender), who pledges to bring sweeping positive changes to the household. British writer-director Andrea Arnold's sophomore feature won Best British Film at the 2010 BAFTAs.

Director: Andrea Arnold

Totally depressing.

Life is tough for 15 year old Mia. The skys are grey. There is no money. The neighborhood is nasty. Mom drinks too much too often. Even when Mom aint drinking she is nasty. School sucks. But Mom's new boyfriend seems to bring a little something pleasant to Mia's life. He is caring, supportive and actually smiles. For a while......

Things become even darker toward the end of the film. There are a few moments where the dread of anticipated events becomes quite heavy.

This film felt very real to me.

All performances were darn good.

Editing had a few disjointed cuts, but it felt more like rookie work as opposed to a style. Not bad enough to affect my enjoyment of the film though.

1.37:1 aspect ratio for a 2009 film felt a little

Film 4.25/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 3/5 and thats generous. It has a DTS 5.1 lossless track, but it's wasted. Not all the channels are used even though there are tons of opportunities to exploit it through ambient sounds like music and traffic. Most of the background sounds are being pushed through the center channel, making dialogue frequently difficult to make out.

Still, I recommend it to those who enjoy depressing family dramas.

There is a glimmer of hope...

3. Black Swan 5/5

[Show spoiler]what can I say? my remote battery died with all the rewinding of POrtman ...anyway seriously: GREAT film! Aranofsky delivered! Like 127 hours, gave incredible imagery to convey the subjective state of the character! Not easy to do with a convincing fashion. Very close with 127 Hours on which I preferred. A toss up.

A Magic moment for me in the theater.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I'm in the minority in the forum, as HP 1-2 are my favorites! They bring out the kid in me - Harry is young, he seems joyful and happy to be at Hogwarts. By part 5, he looks like he's going to work on Monday. Yes, there are valid reasons why he's sad/depressed, but I just prefer HP 1-2 because they are what make HP unique - while the rest get too dark and start to taste and smell too much like films in the overcrowded dark-magic genre, like Underworld.

The first HP film is by FAR the best of the series.....for me the rest were all blah..

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Uh-oh...you weren't here when I watched it and...eh, I'll leave it up to Squid to mention it :

Well, Ceasar Diesel didnt care for it, too much.