The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Mahatma]

A bit off-topic,but if ever you guys here in this thread feel abit run down,and uninspired,here is inspiration in form of a review of the upcoming opus from Madonna:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...simpson-review

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Frequency - 2000

This was a really good film that used "slightly out there" techniques to make it work. But then again, the point that it wasn't all based in reality is what made it special. The movie felt a lot longer than 2 hours, but that's not a bad thing. I loved how baseball was a connection that was used in most of the story. Overall, a very solid film.

Netflix DVD rental

PQ - n/a
AQ - n/a

4/5

I really enjoyed this movie and think I gave it a 4 as well

[menaceuk]

The Devils Double 8.5/10

Really enjoyed it. The Movie does a pretty good job of showing the terrible life some of the Iraqi people suffer while Not going to overboard. I also Liked the real life footage of the War mingled in.

Dominic Cooper also gives a fantastic performance and really helps differentiate the two characters to a degree where you sometimes forget he is playing multiple characters.

Well Worth a watch

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

"2001: A Space Odyssey"

you really didn't think you were going to get away with this "cheeky" review, did you?

Its entire 150-minute runtime takes its longest sweetest time to get nowhere very slowly. I suspect it's because most shots are incredibly long and lingering, with limited amounts of dialogue or sound, and with certainly no major action.

common 2001 complaint. Personally, I see it no different than a dude sitting on the beach and saying "this ocean is soooo boring. the waves wash in soooo slow."

Like the ocean, which shows the natural speed of waves, 2001 shows the natural speed of space. If that guy on the beach spent years in a room watching sped-up ocean waves, he would think the ocean waves are too slow. In the same way, Post-2001 Sci-fi films have warped our minds into believing that they are "normal" space speed, and 2001 is "slow" space speed, when in fact they are "warped" space speed and 2001 is "normal" space speed.

I also find it frustrating how the film often focuses on details or scenes that don't really push the story at all

IMHO, I don't think there is any story that needs to be "pushed" (assuming you mean a character-driven plot story). Hollywood definitely tells us that it must do so. And Hollywood can tell me all it wants, but I don't have to listen. Instead, I'll just do what Kubrick says: interpret the film for myself and have an awesome experience in the process

Don't get me wrong though; despite my primitive complaints, it's hard not to appreciate the film in many ways. It's visually gorgeous; there are hundreds of special effects shots here that hold up to this very day. The model and matte-painting work is incredibly well-detailed and well-designed; camera work and composition is top-notch. There are a lot of trippy shots where characters are walking on walls and doing zero-G stuff. But what's really trippy is the last half-hour or so. These scenes are probably the biggest WTF scenes of all time. I still don't even know what they really mean. But at the very least, it's wild to watch (...and I've been told that it's exceptionally wild while under the influence. Not that I encourage such things, but it was apparently popular in the 60s ).

He redeemed himself! You know I'm joking, anyway. I've read too many of your reviews not to respect every one, regardless of whehter I disagree.

The story for this never fully clicked with me (especially in regards to the ending

there is a "cage" theory of the end that you may find interesting:

[Show spoiler]
-think of a zoo: in a zoo, the zoo keepers design the animal cage to resemble the animal's natural habitat, to make it feel more at home
-at the end, this theory goes that the aliens (zookeepers) looked inside Dave's brain and looked at his memories of all the places he visited over his lifetime. They randomly chose one to use as his "cage", and it just so happened that they chose a memory of when he visited a museum, and (wrongly) assumed that this was his home. Hence, why the setup is him living as he would at home (table, chairs, bed), but in a museum environment

If there's one thing that I feel brings the story down the most (aside from pacing and unnecessary scenes), it's the sheer lack of interesting characters.

IMHO, this would be true of a traditional Hollywood, character-driven plot that routinely leans on character development. 2001 relies on characters like Blu-ray technology relies on HD-DVD

As a film, it's a thing of beauty. As mentioned above, the photography is awesome, and the editing equally so. Acting seems quite dry to me, but is generally not bad. Writing is alright (some more exposition might have been nice though). This production has top-notch sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music is classy.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

This review might come off as some kind of a rant, but I actually do like the film for its merits (more than I dislike it for being "boring").

no, its actually one of the best reviews I've read in terms of a movie someone finds boring, yet still went out of their way to find the things they liked and acknowledge the films importance.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

The Artist

going to see it tomorrow!! can't wait!!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

you really didn't think you were going to get away with this "cheeky" review, did you?

Dang, I almost got away with it!

Originally Posted by surfdude12

common 2001 complaint. Personally, I see it no different than a dude sitting on the beach and saying "this ocean is soooo boring. the waves wash in soooo slow."

Like the ocean, which shows the natural speed of waves, 2001 shows the natural speed of space. If that guy on the beach spent years in a room watching sped-up ocean waves, he would think the ocean waves are too slow. In the same way, Post-2001 Sci-fi films have warped our minds into believing that they are "normal" space speed, and 2001 is "slow" space speed, when in fact they are "warped" space speed and 2001 is "normal" space speed.

That is an interesting way to put it. I usually attribute "2001" to being a film from an era where people are more used to slower pacing. Therefore, my frame of reference includes way faster (maybe even shorter) films than this. I also got to agree that the film is spot-on with showing realistic space travel and all its slowness.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

IMHO, I don't think there is any story that needs to be "pushed" (assuming you mean a character-driven plot story). Hollywood definitely tells us that it must do so. And Hollywood can tell me all it wants, but I don't have to listen. Instead, I'll just do what Kubrick says: interpret the film for myself and have an awesome experience in the process

IMHO, this would be true of a traditional Hollywood, character-driven plot that routinely leans on character development. 2001 relies on characters like Blu-ray technology relies on HD-DVD

What? A story with no structure or characters? Are they mad?!

I can understand, there really isn't much room for deep character development or emotional growth or anything fancy like that. Especially since the movie jumps from 2-3 different eras and 2-3 different viewpoints. Something about it feels a little off or weird to me, but maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

there is a "cage" theory of the end that you may find interesting:

[Show spoiler]
-think of a zoo: in a zoo, the zoo keepers design the animal cage to resemble the animal's natural habitat, to make it feel more at home
-at the end, this theory goes that the aliens (zookeepers) looked inside Dave's brain and looked at his memories of all the places he visited over his lifetime. They randomly chose one to use as his "cage", and it just so happened that they chose a memory of when he visited a museum, and (wrongly) assumed that this was his home. Hence, why the setup is him living as he would at home (table, chairs, bed), but in a museum environment

I might have seen that before, but totally forgot about it as I watched the movie. It definitely invokes some deeper thought/interpretation, and I think it is quite fitting.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

no, its actually one of the best reviews I've read in terms of a movie someone finds boring, yet still went out of their way to find the things they liked and acknowledge the films importance.

Thank you, I try.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I have seen numerous people write that same sentence in their review.

Not playing anywhere near me.

I'm sure it is bound to win some awards, and when it does, I hope it gets a wider release. It's not perfect (gets oddly formulaic at times), but it's just so well-made. Grabs you from the beginning then just keeps getting better.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

going to see it tomorrow!! can't wait!!

I hope you enjoy it!

[Lepidopterous]

I watched The Tree of Life for the first time recently... what a beautifully-shot film. The way Malick uses sequences of images to music to tell the story and mesmerize the viewer reminded me of 2001. Just wow. I'll expand later when I have time and can get another viewing in.

[Foggy]

Watched the whole Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy now...final verdict...

[Show spoiler]They're long!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched the whole Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy now...final verdict...

[Show spoiler]They're long!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched the whole Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy now...final verdict...

[Show spoiler]They're long!

Then do not pick up the book cause it's much, much longer

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched the whole Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy now...final verdict...

[Show spoiler]They're long!

[Show spoiler]No shit

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched the whole Lord of the Rings Extended Edition trilogy now...final verdict...

[Show spoiler]They're long!

yeah! I thought Gone With the Wind was long at 4 hrs.

ROTK Extended beats it at 4 hrs 11 mins

Too bad I missed an hour of it at the cinema = Bad bad bad extra large soda refills!

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest blind-buy: "Kung Fu Panda 2."

I seem to remember seeing mostly negative reviews when this movie came out last summer. Now all the suddenly I see mostly positive reviews. So I was compelled to buy it when it was cheaper.

As it is, I think this is one of those cases where the first film has the better story but the second film has the bigger (and maybe better) action. "KFP2" definitely kicks it up a notch; most of the short 90-minute runtime is devoted to high-flying, high-speed, high-octane kung-fu fighting! Fight moves and choreography is still impressive, but as the characters fight they way through exploding buildings and across crashing warships, the action becomes impressive by any martial arts standard. And of course, the comedy is still quite amusing.

As far as the story goes, it is missing a certain something that made the first film endearing. I suspect it's because, firstly, the focus is no longer on Po seeking acceptance from his peers or his master. Now everybody gets along. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it's no longer a martial arts film, as it is an epic. The focus is no longer on Po learning/training/developing as a "dragon warrior," it's now all about stopping some megalomaniac warlord.

But as the movie went on, I felt it developed some surprising strength of its own. Po's backstory provided a decent platform for the character to develop further, and reinforce the lessons learned from the first film. And most importantly, it ties in cleverly with the villain, drawing parallels with the two characters that drive the story and themes in interesting ways. Even though the first film may seem deeper for its themes of personal discovery, I believe this film does a good job at digging up even more themes of spiritual healing and perseverance.

As expected, the film looks gorgeous! Animation quality is still top-notch, with fine-looking renderings, textures, details, lighting effects, and production designs. Voice-acting is still quite good; Gary Oldman is fantastic as the villain, and the voice cast from the first film returns with apt quality. Writing seems pretty decent. Music is quite nice.

4.5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 4.5/5) Same level as the first film.

Recommendation: If you enjoyed the first film, then at least give this one a rent.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

As a song, it'd be

[Show spoiler]...what else...?

Kung Fu Panda Music Video, Kung Fu Fighting High Definition - YouTube

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest blind-buy: "Kung Fu Panda 2."

[Show spoiler]I seem to remember seeing mostly negative reviews when this movie came out last summer. Now all the suddenly I see mostly positive reviews. So I was compelled to buy it when it was cheaper.

As it is, I think this is one of those cases where the first film has the better story but the second film has the bigger (and maybe better) action. "KFP2" definitely kicks it up a notch; most of the short 90-minute runtime is devoted to high-flying, high-speed, high-octane kung-fu fighting! Fight moves and choreography is still impressive, but as the characters fight they way through exploding buildings and across crashing warships, the action becomes impressive by any martial arts standard. And of course, the comedy is still quite amusing.

As far as the story goes, it is missing a certain something that made the first film endearing. I suspect it's because, firstly, the focus is no longer on Po seeking acceptance from his peers or his master. Now everybody gets along. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it's no longer a martial arts film, as it is an epic. The focus is no longer on Po learning/training/developing as a "dragon warrior," it's now all about stopping some megalomaniac warlord.

But as the movie went on, I felt it developed some surprising strength of its own. Po's backstory provided a decent platform for the character to develop further, and reinforce the lessons learned from the first film. And most importantly, it ties in cleverly with the villain, drawing parallels with the two characters that drive the story and themes in interesting ways. Even though the first film may seem deeper for its themes of personal discovery, I believe this film does a good job at digging up even more themes of spiritual healing and perseverance.

As expected, the film looks gorgeous! Animation quality is still top-notch, with fine-looking renderings, textures, details, lighting effects, and production designs. Voice-acting is still quite good; Gary Oldman is fantastic as the villain, and the voice cast from the first film returns with apt quality. Writing seems pretty decent. Music is quite nice.

4.5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 4.5/5) Same level as the first film.

Recommendation: If you enjoyed the first film, then at least give this one a rent.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

Thanks for the review Al. I have it sitting on a shelf and I am eager to watch it (a rare blind buy) once I finish pounding through some more of my string of recently available TV shows.

Tell me though, I have heard the ending is quite the setup for a third, but in a good way, is this true?

As a song, it'd be

[Show spoiler]...what else...?

Kung Fu Panda Music Video, Kung Fu Fighting High Definition - YouTube

That guy is actually built just like a panda.

[Steve46]

Hayao Miyazaki is 71 today. Let's all watch Totoro or Spirited Away

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thanks for the review Al. I have it sitting on a shelf and I am eager to watch it (a rare blind buy) once I finish pounding through some more of my string of recently available TV shows.

Tell me though, I have heard the ending is quite the setup for a third, but in a good way, is this true?

I suspect you'll enjoy it. I forgot to mention that, if there is one other negative thing, it'd be the absence of master Shifu (he's only in a few scenes).

Yep, there is a nice little surprise scene at the end. I thought it was very good, and it definitely has me interested in a third film. Nothing after the credits though.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

That guy is actually built just like a panda.

[Romulus]

The Descendants (2011, Alexander Payne)

Slowly, but surely I'm making way through the 2011 films all bound to have big roles in the Awards Season. Unfortunately, I missed a great deal throughout the semester that I've been referring to as "hell", around my friends and family.

This was the last day this film was playing here in my hometown. My decision was torn somewhat, seeing as it's also the last day Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" is playing at the local art house. I had mixed feelings about "Antichrist" (2009), so I figured I would play it safe and see this film instead. Its hard to imagine I made the wrong decision.

From the moment I saw the trailer for this film my interest was heightened. George Clooney plays Matt King, a real estate agent living in Hawaii who is dealing a family tragedy: Matt's wife is in a coma after a boating accident. Not to make anything less stressful for Matt's life, he is forced to fix his strained relationship with his two daughters Scottie (Miller) and Alex (Woodley) while also deciding the fate of family trust that controls 25,000 square miles of undeveloped land on Kaua'i.

There are many great things that this film does. It's primary strengths lie in the acting and writing. Clooney gives one of the best performances that I can remember in his long career. I'm a little out of the loop on the Oscar race this year, but I can't imagine Clooney not being a big part, if not the outright favorite, to win Best Actor. He's certainly doesn't outshine his counterparts, though. The young actress Shailene Woodly is equally impressive as the oldest daughter. I remember reading that that the actress categories this year are stacked, so it's entirely possible that Woodly gets left out. I think that's a shame, any other year she would have been shoe-in.

The great acting is critical for this film, and it all stems from the wonderful script penned by Faxon, Rash, and Payne. I don't care how many people contributed to it, a good script is a good script. The great and acting combine to create a film that feels entirely real. Not at any point are you drawn out of the film's diegesis. With each section of the film, you become more engrossed and engaged. You're not exactly sure how everything is going to play out.

Compared to Payne's other film "Sideways" 2004, I feel this film is better and nearly every level. The characters are extremely engaging and interesting, the subject matter feels very real, and you feel very connected even though something like this may never happen to you or anyone you know. Payne's themes of family dysfunction and failed marriage continue here, but with better and more thoughtful results.

It's been a while since I've written a review, but hopefully this gives you a general idea of the film. There are themes I would love to expand on, but I feel another viewing is in order.

I would rank this number 2 on the year behind The Tree of Life. I highly recommend viewing this film.

4.5/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Hayao Miyazaki is 71 today. Let's all watch Totoro or Spirited Away

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Hayao Miyazaki is 71 today. Let's all watch Totoro or Spirited Away

Wasn't enough time last night. Might be a good excuse to kick off a marathon tonight though.