The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well, it's a bit of a clitche, and a little bit late, but I finally got around to watching...

The Room

[Show spoiler]You know, that really bad film everyone was raving about last year. It's really bad.

From the opening scene, the bar is set rather low, there is a lack of direction with anything. Nothing really has a pay off, unless it involves a large bloody bullet hole in the back of the head. Scenes really just trail off, and there a lot of actors doing awkward stuff with their hands and faces due to them not being told what to do. Line delivering spans between stale to brain tumor inducing, and it adds a new level to "being subtle".

It lacks logic, features way too much nudity from both parties, and is all in all a train wreak.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Seriously, this film knows the bare minimum of film knowledge, and even then, it struggles to apply this to it's own work. It does need to be seen to believed, the film as a whole, really does melt the face off any filmgoer, it's that spectacularly bad.

7/10

(In Al's case, this would be the greatest film of all time)

Oh hi!

The Room - "Oh Hi" compilation (!!Spoiler!!) - YouTube

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Seen 2 new movies lately,and begin with the bad news:

The thing (2011):It really didn't bring much new ideas to the table,and to me it felt more like a remake rather than a prequel.Was hoping for a different take.But the ending was fantastic.Made it go up a notch overall.But sadly,only recommended for fans of either the genre or the original-barely.

Movie:3/5.

Blind bought Last days of Sophie Scholl.Now this is a seriously well made movie.What stood out for me was the acting.The lead really gave a wonderfully believable performance.But,really,everyone delivered stellar performances.Only negative comment I can make is that it is a trifle conventional.It almost felt like a theater piece.And lastly,the cinematography is also something which stands out.Perfect for either BD viewing or at the cinema.

Movie:4.5/5-I agree with the reviewer.
PQ:5/5.No complaints.
AQ:5/5.Atleast on my setup.

Sophie Scholl is an excellent film. Interesting fact: most of the interrogation dialogue is taken from the actual recorded transcripts.

[Monkey_Boy]

"20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1997)

I had finished reading Jules Verne's magnificent story to my children and, as with "The Hobbit" & "The Lord of the Rings" (and as I intend to do after "Moby Dick", our recent bedtime adventure), I decided to watch a movie based off of the book with 'em. At first, it was going to be an animated picture that was available on Netflix, but, for some reason or another, it had disappeared from my Instant Queue. So I went on a mission to find a version that we might could enjoy. "Stylish and ambitious. Tells a great story." was the blurb on the cover from Eric Mink of the New York Daily News. It was at a respectable 178 minutes, and starred Michael Cain as Captain Nemo. I was a little put off by Mia Sara being on the cover, but figured they wouldn't, no, couldn't stray too far from such a wonderful story. I mean, sure, they had to add a love story, how else are they gonna attract the woman crowd? How hopelessly wrong I was; they butchered the living hell outta the book so badly, they should be ashamed of even having the nerve to call this movie "Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"! **SPOILERS AHEAD** Not really for the movie, I just really BEG of you to read the book before you read below. Fantastic read! (Even if there is waaaaay more descriptive text than in all of Tolkien's work put together!)

The movie started out well enough, Prof. Aronnax (our narrator in the original story and in the movie) is giving his take, to a room of old farts, on what could possibly be overtaking ships at sea; a ginormous narwhal! In order to prove himself he ends up aboard the Abraham Lincoln, a grand frigate in search of the monster. However, things start to take a turn for the worst when Conseil, a very loyal small, french servant to Aronnax in the book, is replaced by a large man of African descent named Gregory (I think, my anger is clouding my abilty to recall his name for certain). Normally, I wouldn't mind such a change, but it seems he is only here to make Captain Nemo out to be a slave master (which is absolute garbage ). Not very long into the voyage, we get to see Ned Land, a master whaler attempt to show his awesomeness when he is interrupted by Greg, who gets into a fight with him for trying to kill an innocent creature and kicks him overboard! Greg than jumps into the water after him, and this is when Nemo's sub, The Nautilus, makes its appearance. The Abraham Lincoln's crew begins their attack, and The Nautilus returns the assault, sending Prof. Aronnax overboard with the other two men. The attack renders the A.L. unable to steer, and thus it cannot turn 'round and save the now stranded men. They are later taken aboard Nemo's vessel.

The changes so far have been minor... in the grand scheme of things. They do become alot more atrocious, though. Like when Nemo takes Aronnax and his companions out to hunt at the bottom of the sea. In the book, while Ned hated being trapped aboard Nemo's sub, he was thrilled to be hunting creatures that he couldn't hope to kill anyplace else on Earth. He even kills a large shark with a direct hit to the heart before it has a chance to harm anyone! (Verne's knowledge of sharks is proven so ignorant here, as he describes the shark rolling on its side to bite, but I guess you could cut the guy some slack since I don't think many people back then had actually viewed such attacks in the real world ) In the movie, he takes a shot at Nemo instead! Then, it is Nemo who fells the shark that is about to attack Ned Land! This lands Land (what a delicious pun! ) in the brig (which I don't even think existed on the sub in the book) for pretty much the entire movie! Ned is made out to be completely out of his gourd! So much so, that he ends up killing himself to expose Nemo to the outside world! Which made me vomit in an angerous rage! (This kinda freaked out my 8 year-old son who was watching it with me, but he understood why I had this reaction; my body can't digest bullshit very well, but who's can?)

At one point in the movie we find that Nemo has visited a galaxy far, far away and has attained a robotic hand apparently done by a 2-1B surgical droid http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Medical_droid, which he also gives to Aronnax when he gets his hand crushed trying to undo the insanity that Ned had put upon this grand vessel. Nemo only did this for the pleadings of HIS DAUGHTER. Yes. A daughter he isn't supposed to have because his entire family were killed by surface dwellers! Thus explaining why Nemo has seperated himself from Terra Firma altogether, and why he MUST destroy every ship he sees sailing in his waters! It was the death of his family that drove him to the sea, not just his wife! Yet, in spite of all of this, here she is; ladies and gentlemen, meet the romantic interest of Prof. Aronnax! This actually happens right after Greg saves a poor native woman from drowning to death; so now he also has that special someone. Ned? Who gives a damn about that daffy bastard? Certainly not the Prof. He actually seemed to despise him. Despise Ned Land?! I couldn't believe it!

The movie went on to explain that Nemo was setting explosive charges up all over the world in an attempt to stop earthquakes once & for all in order to protect his new home that was originally destroyed by quakes: Los Angeles-- I kid! I kid! No, it's Atlantis. In the book, Atlantis is just a walkthrough. Something to show Aronnax and his companions as they explored the oceanfloor with Nemo. I don't think Nemo ever planned on anchoring anywhere and calling it home. Not from what I took from the man. He was resolute in cruising the oceans in his sub until someone took them down... together! There were no bombs to save the world from earthquakes!

By the end of the movie, Nemo's sub has been rendered junk, his entire crew is machine gun fodder and in a ditch effort to get last lick, he manages to fire 2 torpedoes at his attackers, not knowing his daughter was aboard their ship as it is rendered to splinters. Aronnax's father shows up to claim Nemo's Nautilus, but with the help of Prof. Aronnax, a self destruct was activated and destroyed the entire ship with its captain and the senior Aronnax.

This movie made the complicated Captain Nemo an angry prison warden to his guests; the awesomeness that was Ned Land into an insane villain, who even tried to escape the ship alone without Aronnax; and the kind Prof. Aronnax actually hates Ned for what he'd done. I'd never seen a movie that had such absolute disrespect for its source material. By the end I was hollaring, "THIS IS CRAP! THIS IS CRAP! THIS IS CRAP!" Over and over again! Very rarely does an adaption do this to me; I'm always prepared for a few changes, but the changes here weren't small and easily overlooked. They were glaring and were damned ugly to the naked eye!

0/5 Waaaaaaaaaaaaay down to the ground!

[Steve46]

After almost three years of collecting Blu-rays, I finally own my top 10 films of all time in HD. The final addition is hard to place into any category, so I'll just say it's Lynch.

Blue Velvet 5/5



Eraserhead was the film that started it all for many Lynch fans, but I consider Blue Velvet the first film to show his signature style in its full glory. Eraserhead is more disjointed, while Elephant Man and Dune are more straightforward stories that don't fit as easily in Lynch's twisted world.

Think of Blue Velvet as the beginning. The lines between the real world and fantasy are blurred. Kyle MacLachlan explores the dark world underneath the shiny surface of American suburbia, with the help of Laura Dern. The story is dominated by Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth and wouldn't be the same without Isabella Rossellini as Dorothy.

It's easy to see how Twin Peaks emerged. MacLachlan playing an FBI agent was just an extension of his character in Blue Velvet. Wild at Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire all evoke similar feelings. I consider those five films and Twin Peaks as the heart of David Lynch's worlds.

Talking of worlds, the setting for Blue Velvet certainly transports the viewer into another world. That's what I like most about Lynch. He'll shock you, make you laugh and scare you, but his genius is world creation. Although these settings are familiar to us, something isn't quite right. You're always trying to find out what's different or wrong and it adds to the air of mystery.

I'm delighted to finally own Blue Velvet on Blu-ray. So if you are a fan of the film, why should you buy it?

It's ridiculously cheap for one thing. The picture quality is much better than I expected from a 25-year-old film. Colors are bright and detail is well-defined, considering that many scenes are shot in dark surroundings. The main flaw is the presence of white speckles throughout the presentation. Lynch supervised the Blu-ray project and it's almost as good as you could imagine. I would rate it a 4 or 4.5 out of 5 and I'm very happy.

The other major reason to add this to your collection is the discovery of footage previously thought lost. The film is still presented in its original 2-hour version, but there are an additional 51 minutes of lost scenes included among the special features (in HD). If you love the characters and their world, the extra 51 minutes are an exciting find. Some of the scenes develop parts of the story, while others are oddities that don't really fit. I'm delighted to have this new information about a film I have come to love.

This is the most exciting catalog release of the year so far for me. With the Three Colors Trilogy and 12 Angry Men about to be released, November is a memorable month for Blu-ray.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

After almost three years of collecting Blu-rays, I finally own my top 10 films of all time in HD. The final addition is hard to place into any category, so I'll just say it's Lynch.

Blue Velvet 5/5

[Show spoiler]Eraserhead was the film that started it all for many Lynch fans, but I consider Blue Velvet the first film to show his signature style in its full glory. Eraserhead is more disjointed, while Elephant Man and Dune are more straightforward stories that don't fit as easily in Lynch's twisted world.

Think of Blue Velvet as the beginning. The lines between the real world and fantasy are blurred. Kyle MacLachlan explores the dark world underneath the shiny surface of American suburbia, with the help of Laura Dern. The story is dominated by Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth and wouldn't be the same without Isabella Rossellini as Dorothy.

It's easy to see how Twin Peaks emerged. MacLachlan playing an FBI agent was just an extension of his character in Blue Velvet. Wild at Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire all evoke similar feelings. I consider those five films and Twin Peaks as the heart of David Lynch's worlds.

Talking of worlds, the setting for Blue Velvet certainly transports the viewer into another world. That's what I like most about Lynch. He'll shock you, make you laugh and scare you, but his genius is world creation. Although these settings are familiar to us, something isn't quite right. You're always trying to find out what's different or wrong and it adds to the air of mystery.

I'm delighted to finally own Blue Velvet on Blu-ray. So if you are a fan of the film, why should you buy it?

It's ridiculously cheap for one thing. The picture quality is much better than I expected from a 25-year-old film. Colors are bright and detail is well-defined, considering that many scenes are shot in dark surroundings. The main flaw is the presence of white speckles throughout the presentation. Lynch supervised the Blu-ray project and it's almost as good as you could imagine. I would rate it a 4 or 4.5 out of 5 and I'm very happy.

The other major reason to add this to your collection is the discovery of footage previously thought lost. The film is still presented in its original 2-hour version, but there are an additional 51 minutes of lost scenes included among the special features (in HD). If you love the characters and their world, the extra 51 minutes are an exciting find. Some of the scenes develop parts of the story, while others are oddities that don't really fit. I'm delighted to have this new information about a film I have come to love.

This is the most exciting catalog release of the year so far for me. With the Three Colors Trilogy and 12 Angry Men about to be released, November is a memorable month for Blu-ray.

I've never seen this, but also I am pretty sure I have yet to see any David Lynch films.

On a side note since you mentioned it, I am tempted to blind buy the Three Colors Trilogy when it comes out on the 15th. I've only bought one Criterion so far during the latest Barnes and Noble sale (Dazed and Confused) and that looks tempting.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

I've never seen this, but also I am pretty sure I have yet to see any David Lynch films.

On a side note since you mentioned it, I am tempted to blind buy the Three Colors Trilogy when it comes out on the 15th. I've only bought one Criterion so far during the latest Barnes and Noble sale (Dazed and Confused) and that looks tempting.

Lynch is an acquired taste. Mulholland Dr. is my favorite film so I'm obviously a fan. Three Colors and The Double Life of Veronique are pretty great if you like that sort of thing. Criterions are hard to call though as everyone reacts differently and they are so varied.

Although 12 Angry Men should be on most shopping lists in my opinion.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Well, it's a bit of a clitche, and a little bit late, but I finally got around to watching...

The Room

[Show spoiler]You know, that really bad film everyone was raving about last year. It's really bad.

From the opening scene, the bar is set rather low, there is a lack of direction with anything. Nothing really has a pay off, unless it involves a large bloody bullet hole in the back of the head. Scenes really just trail off, and there a lot of actors doing awkward stuff with their hands and faces due to them not being told what to do. Line delivering spans between stale to brain tumor inducing, and it adds a new level to "being subtle".

It lacks logic, features way too much nudity from both parties, and is all in all a train wreak.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Seriously, this film knows the bare minimum of film knowledge, and even then, it struggles to apply this to it's own work. It does need to be seen to believed, the film as a whole, really does melt the face off any filmgoer, it's that spectacularly bad.

7/10

(In Al's case, this would be the greatest film of all time)

This movie is awesome, really.

Originally Posted by Steve46

After almost three years of collecting Blu-rays, I finally own my top 10 films of all time in HD. The final addition is hard to place into any category, so I'll just say it's Lynch.

Blue Velvet 5/5

[Show spoiler]

Eraserhead was the film that started it all for many Lynch fans, but I consider Blue Velvet the first film to show his signature style in its full glory. Eraserhead is more disjointed, while Elephant Man and Dune are more straightforward stories that don't fit as easily in Lynch's twisted world.

Think of Blue Velvet as the beginning. The lines between the real world and fantasy are blurred. Kyle MacLachlan explores the dark world underneath the shiny surface of American suburbia, with the help of Laura Dern. The story is dominated by Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth and wouldn't be the same without Isabella Rossellini as Dorothy.

It's easy to see how Twin Peaks emerged. MacLachlan playing an FBI agent was just an extension of his character in Blue Velvet. Wild at Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire all evoke similar feelings. I consider those five films and Twin Peaks as the heart of David Lynch's worlds.

Talking of worlds, the setting for Blue Velvet certainly transports the viewer into another world. That's what I like most about Lynch. He'll shock you, make you laugh and scare you, but his genius is world creation. Although these settings are familiar to us, something isn't quite right. You're always trying to find out what's different or wrong and it adds to the air of mystery.

I'm delighted to finally own Blue Velvet on Blu-ray. So if you are a fan of the film, why should you buy it?

It's ridiculously cheap for one thing. The picture quality is much better than I expected from a 25-year-old film. Colors are bright and detail is well-defined, considering that many scenes are shot in dark surroundings. The main flaw is the presence of white speckles throughout the presentation. Lynch supervised the Blu-ray project and it's almost as good as you could imagine. I would rate it a 4 or 4.5 out of 5 and I'm very happy.

The other major reason to add this to your collection is the discovery of footage previously thought lost. The film is still presented in its original 2-hour version, but there are an additional 51 minutes of lost scenes included among the special features (in HD). If you love the characters and their world, the extra 51 minutes are an exciting find. Some of the scenes develop parts of the story, while others are oddities that don't really fit. I'm delighted to have this new information about a film I have come to love.

This is the most exciting catalog release of the year so far for me. With the Three Colors Trilogy and 12 Angry Men about to be released, November is a memorable month for Blu-ray.

I got this on DVR. Among Lynch's works, I've only seen Mulholland Dr. and parts of Dune. Mulholland, though, is one of my all-time faves. I've also been wanting to check out Twin Peaks and Wild at Heart.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest movie seen on TV: "Rush Hour 3." Which is funny, because I've never seen the first two movies...

Well, this turned out to be a fine and dandy buddy-cop flick. It's a fun and lighthearted blend of action, comedy, and martial arts. It did have its share of cool parts and some funny antics (but sadly, not enough to outclass other movies of the same type).

The story for this is equally fine and dandy; characters are fairly flat, but definitely lively and amusing to watch. The story gets a little predictable with its twists and turns, and it's not terribly invoking on any level, but it's a fine excuse for a pair of funny guys to beat people up.

The film has solid photography and editing. Acting is fine and dandy, if not a little over-the-top; Chris Tucker is surprisingly not annoying, and kinda funny, while Jackie Chan is the man. Writing is okay. Sets, props, costumes, SFX are slick. Music is alright.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5)

Recommendation: Probably for fans and action junkies.

[Al_The_Strange]

I reviewed this movie a year ago, but decided to draft up a new review that's a little less hyped-up (especially since I might be one of the only few guys left here who actually likes it ).

"Inception"

In the same vein as other classic off-the-wall sci-fi flicks ("The Matrix," "Dark City," etc), and coming from Christopher Nolan, you know that this film will be slick. It's loaded with style, fantastic eye-candy, and gorgeous special effects. At times, watching this film is like looking at an MC Escher painting (in a couple of scenes, literally). Pacing is tight and even, filling up the whole 2.5 hours in a very fulfilling way.

The story for this is brilliant in many respects. It gets a bad rap (around here ) for telling more than its shows, but much of this is necessary to lay down the rules that the movie operates in (much like "The Matrix"), and then creating an interesting universe withing the constraints of these rules. The story kicks off right from the start and reveals more and more as it goes on; the plot structuring is quite complex, and its layers become apparent as the movie roams on. Characters aren't exactly the deepest of all time, but I found them interesting enough; the main character probably steals the spotlight as the film explores all his secrets (and that is ultimately the whole point and heart of the movie). In the midst of all this, you can also expect to find frequent themes and ideas concerning dreaming, the nature of reality and fantasy, and the nature of creationism.

The most critical viewers tend to cite this film as a boring, pretentious, shallow, and overly-explicit "power-point presentation." The film certainly won't outclass the works of artists like Lynch, Mallick, Godard, Aronofsky, or other super-intelligent directors. Nor is it meant to; it's a blockbuster first and foremost, so it puts the intellectual emphasis on the plot and ideas rather than showing insanely complex/realistic characters or mind-blowing themes of humanity. To be frank, I think the characters in "Inception" are every bit as good as what you'd find in a typical sci-fi/action/heist film (emphasis on heist film; these people remind me quite a bit of the teams you see in flicks like "The Italian Job," "The Usual Suspects," etc), and the themes concerning reality-vs-fantasy are stronger than the average popcorn flick. I don't think the film's method of exposition is any worse than the scenes in "The Matrix" movies where everything is laid out to the audience. I still believe that this level of exposition is required to keep the audience hanging on to what's going on in the film; otherwise, they'd be lost and confused, and they'd dismiss the film as convoluted (one could argue that it's a sad testament to modern-day mentality that people can't grasp these ideas without it all being spoon-fed to them, but I'm sure that Nolan understands that the most casual audience doesn't want to sit there and analyze every single frame the way an intellectual audience does, so he simply made it all accessible). Perhaps the film was over-hyped for some viewers, or else Nolan is a victim of his own previous successes. Whatever the case is, I still don't get the hate.

As expected, the film looks slick and stylish, with fantastic photography and editing. Acting is splendid; I though Leo DiCaprio was cool with his role. Writing is good. This production spares no expense on the sets, props, costumes, and SFX. Music is awesome.

5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5) Increased from 4.5/5

Recommendation: Hell yeah!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

(In Al's case, this would be the greatest film of all time)

Sweet! I'm going to have to check it out!

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by jvince

I got this on DVR. Among Lynch's works, I've only seen Mulholland Dr. and parts of Dune. Mulholland, though, is one of my all-time faves. I've also been wanting to check out Twin Peaks and Wild at Heart.

Blue Velvet is second among my favorite Lynch films. You'll probably love it if you like Mulholland Dr. that much. Twin Peaks is still my favorite TV show.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Sweet! I'm going to have to check it out!

You really should. It's a classic. And try to check out Birdemic too.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I reviewed this movie a year ago, but decided to draft up a new review that's a little less hyped-up (especially since I might be one of the only few guys left here who actually likes it ).

"Inception"

[Show spoiler]In the same vein as other classic off-the-wall sci-fi flicks ("The Matrix," "Dark City," etc), and coming from Christopher Nolan, you know that this film will be slick. It's loaded with style, fantastic eye-candy, and gorgeous special effects. At times, watching this film is like looking at an MC Escher painting (in a couple of scenes, literally). Pacing is tight and even, filling up the whole 2.5 hours in a very fulfilling way.

The story for this is brilliant in many respects. It gets a bad rap (around here ) for telling more than its shows, but much of this is necessary to lay down the rules that the movie operates in (much like "The Matrix"), and then creating an interesting universe withing the constraints of these rules. The story kicks off right from the start and reveals more and more as it goes on; the plot structuring is quite complex, and its layers become apparent as the movie roams on. Characters aren't exactly the deepest of all time, but I found them interesting enough; the main character probably steals the spotlight as the film explores all his secrets (and that is ultimately the whole point and heart of the movie). In the midst of all this, you can also expect to find frequent themes and ideas concerning dreaming, the nature of reality and fantasy, and the nature of creationism.

The most critical viewers tend to cite this film as a boring, pretentious, shallow, and overly-explicit "power-point presentation." The film certainly won't outclass the works of artists like Lynch, Mallick, Godard, Aronofsky, or other super-intelligent directors. Nor is it meant to; it's a blockbuster first and foremost, so it puts the intellectual emphasis on the plot and ideas rather than showing insanely complex/realistic characters or mind-blowing themes of humanity. To be frank, I think the characters in "Inception" are every bit as good as what you'd find in a typical sci-fi/action/heist film (emphasis on heist film; these people remind me quite a bit of the teams you see in flicks like "The Italian Job," "The Usual Suspects," etc), and the themes concerning reality-vs-fantasy are stronger than the average popcorn flick. I don't think the film's method of exposition is any worse than the scenes in "The Matrix" movies where everything is laid out to the audience. I still believe that this level of exposition is required to keep the audience hanging on to what's going on in the film; otherwise, they'd be lost and confused, and they'd dismiss the film as convoluted (one could argue that it's a sad testament to modern-day mentality that people can't grasp these ideas without it all being spoon-fed to them, but I'm sure that Nolan understands that the most casual audience doesn't want to sit there and analyze every single frame the way an intellectual audience does, so he simply made it all accessible). Perhaps the film was over-hyped for some viewers, or else Nolan is a victim of his own previous successes. Whatever the case is, I still don't get the hate.

As expected, the film looks slick and stylish, with fantastic photography and editing. Acting is splendid; I though Leo DiCaprio was cool with his role. Writing is good. This production spares no expense on the sets, props, costumes, and SFX. Music is awesome.

5/5 (entertainment: 5/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 5/5) Increased from 4.5/5

Recommendation: Hell yeah!

The first time I liked it but didn't plan on buying it.

Then I scored it for a really good price so I decided to give it a go and have loved it in its multiple repeat viewings

4.5/5

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest movie seen on TV: "Rush Hour 3." Which is funny, because I've never seen the first two movies...

[Show spoiler]Well, this turned out to be a fine and dandy buddy-cop flick. It's a fun and lighthearted blend of action, comedy, and martial arts. It did have its share of cool parts and some funny antics (but sadly, not enough to outclass other movies of the same type).

The story for this is equally fine and dandy; characters are fairly flat, but definitely lively and amusing to watch. The story gets a little predictable with its twists and turns, and it's not terribly invoking on any level, but it's a fine excuse for a pair of funny guys to beat people up.

The film has solid photography and editing. Acting is fine and dandy, if not a little over-the-top; Chris Tucker is surprisingly not annoying, and kinda funny, while Jackie Chan is the man. Writing is okay. Sets, props, costumes, SFX are slick. Music is alright.

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5)

Recommendation: Probably for fans and action junkies.

You watched the 3rd first?!

Heh, doesn't really matter with an action comedy series, but I'm sure it would be a lot more enjoyable after seeing the first two so you can appreciate their friendship more. Btw, the first is by far the best of the 3.

[tbizzle]

Speaking of Lynch, his new album Crazy Clown Time is coming out on the 8th

And here's a good mix that he and his friend put together

http://www.self-titledmag.com/home/2...ls/#more-21572

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Inception

Great review! Great analysis with the reasons people (me included) didn't like it that much. I'll give this one another try, because I love Nolan so much. Its possible that the explicit themes and/or rules of interpretation are necessary here. They just didn't work for me. Other dream/surreal films I love (Last Year Marienbad, Eyes Wide Shut, Mulholland Drive) don't have these explicit themes/rules of interpretation, as you point out, so the imagination is free to roam, but as you also accurately point out, the cost of this is that the audience attention level must be so elevated that a mass blockbuster is probably out of reach.

For me it comes down to this: When explicit themes/rules of interpretation are introduced, its like a parent showing up to chaperone a party, which would otherwise be wild and free!

(but as you point out: sometimes that chaperone is needed or the party gets too crazy!)

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Lynch is an acquired taste. Mulholland Dr. is my favorite film so I'm obviously a fan. Three Colors and The Double Life of Veronique are pretty great if you like that sort of thing. Criterions are hard to call though as everyone reacts differently and they are so varied.

Although 12 Angry Men should be on most shopping lists in my opinion.

I actually do want to see Mulholland Dr., but I won't buy that box set just to get it. Maybe if a studio ever decides to release it there.

You are right about Criterions. I bought 7 during the last sale and only kept 4. Not bad, but I was hoping for better obviously. Still, I managed to get 2 that are now amongst my favorite films, so I'm happy.

12 Angry Men is something I'd feel safer renting first, but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up getting Three Colors.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Steve46

It's easy to see how Twin Peaks emerged. MacLachlan playing an FBI agent was just an extension of his character in Blue Velvet.

hmm, hadn't thought of that. I loved Blue Velvet. Will need to pick this up. Loved Twin Peaks too but thought MacLachlan's character got a little too "Frank Dreben" at times to the point of diluting the seriousness of the drama. I couldn't take the drama so seriously when MacLachlan was being sooo goofy/silly. I still loved Twin Peaks and gave it 4/5 (great for me) ,but would have given it 5/5 if Maclaclan's character was less silly.

Talking of worlds, the setting for Blue Velvet certainly transports the viewer into another world. That's what I like most about Lynch. He'll shock you, make you laugh and scare you, but his genius is world creation. Although these settings are familiar to us, something isn't quite right. You're always trying to find out what's different or wrong and it adds to the air of mystery.

Beautifully stated! I felt that way watching Blue Velvet - my second Lynch film after Mulholland.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

I actually do want to see Mulholland Dr., but I won't buy that box set just to get it. Maybe if a studio ever decides to release it there.

I know what you mean. I've put it in and out of my amazon cart 3-4 times

Its not because I don't want the other films, but I just want Mulholland Drive on its own, as its one of my all-time favorites too. Still can't believe its not out yet!!!

You are right about Criterions. I bought 7 during the last sale and only kept 4. Not bad, but I was hoping for better obviously. Still, I managed to get 2 that are now amongst my favorite films, so I'm happy.

I know what you mean. Criterions are definitely high risk "blind buys". I blind bought a lot and have struck gold for the most part, thank god. The good news is the resale value is so high.

12 Angry Men is something I'd feel safer renting first, but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up getting Three Colors.

12 Angry Men is so good! Especially if you're interested in courtroom dramas or keep up on trial news and juries , like the OJ and Casey Anthony trial - it really gives a "fly on the wall" view of what goes on INSIDE the jury room.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

12 Angry Men is so good! Especially if you're interested in courtroom dramas or keep up on trial news and juries , like the OJ and Casey Anthony trial - it really gives a "fly on the wall" view of what goes on INSIDE the jury room.

It really is that good! I don't recommend blind buys much, as every film can be so different for everyone.... but this really is one of those universally liked films.

[Show spoiler]Unless you're a damn weirdo like Bearcat