The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

In Heaven - Eraserhead - YouTube]

Nobody can make me feel as uncomfortable as Lynch. Nobody!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSBVo59j9U&feature=related

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Nobody can make me feel as uncomfortable as Lynch. Nobody!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSBV...eature=related

Rabbits would have been my next choice, seriously

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

----------------

on the topic of expanding tastes and whatnot, i actually feel like (currently) i'm moving backwards.

i work 10-12 hour days and lately i've just been so tired and exhausted that the last thing i want to do is watch a challenging, difficult or genre bending new film / show. i'm much more in the mood to just watch "simple" films - comedies, romantic comedies and things like that. no offense to those who love those films, hell, i've always loved those films, but i always mixed it in with challenging work and foreign films, but now that i work so much i just don't feel as "up" to trying those as i used to.

i imagine i'll get past the feeling eventually, but for now, i'm content watching some of my "simple" favorites over and over.

I do that sometimes. My thing is trying to find a new movie that fits my mood for the night. That can range from action fluff to romance epics.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Nobody can make me feel as uncomfortable as Lynch. Nobody!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSBV...eature=related

Oh no...the rabbits...bringing back memories of a strange, bewildering cinematic experience...what do they mean...WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!!!!






...and, oh, yes, happy B-day to Mr Lynch, strangest director of all time.

Strangely enough, my favorite of his has always been the one that tragically wrecked his commercial career..."Dune."

The Sleeper Has Awakened - YouTube

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Nobody can make me feel as uncomfortable as Lynch. Nobody!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSBV...eature=related

Cheers to Lynch and thanks for those videos gentlemen! I needed a dose of Lynch... even if I watched some Buñuel last night.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Indeed.

[Foggy]

War Horse

It's that film about the horse that dosses around World War I

In all honest, everything I saw of War Horse up until now cried out one thing, forgettable. The marketing kept bashing us over the head with the fact it's really emotional, all that ran through my mind was that the film was going to be really really sad, and also be really really happy...

The has some really really sad parts, and some really really happy parts. Full Stop, end of review!

I have a lot of good stuff to talk about like the steady pacing, the cool cinematography, the score, the horse's acting, the many short but sweet stories, the 12a rated D-Day rip off scenes and Benedict Cumberbatch's porn mustache (Seriously, he's the British equivalent of Bryan Cranston with the amount of film roles he's cropping up in). And there is a lot of bad stuff to talk about, like the stilted dialogue and the dull delivery by the cast, the fact that the main kid looks about 20, yet we're supposed to believe he's younger (comes off he's a bit mentally ill really) and the German's that speak impeccable English. But in the end, that singular sentence wraps it up, it's got it's ups and it's got it's downs.

There is a slight sense that Spielberg is phoning this one in, as his heart never truly feels in place, he just seems to shrug the whole film off. Which ultimately feels like the films only place in the world is to be a bit of a tribute act to himself. It's made to be forgotten, to be watched but never be remembered, which ultimately, is a bit worrying, because we're sort of lacking in the WWI area of filmmaking.

You've really got to keep in mind that War Horse is a children's book, created to add an emotional investment for kids to understand and learn about WWI. So on that front, you have to respect the films light tone and sometimes understand why the film opts for thick accents people over subtitles. But as far as I'm concerned, not a single child was at that screen, so they are aiming for an audience that lack care for what they are presenting. I'm pretty sure the film will live on as it is shown in history classes and children grow a connection to it, like they do the book, but at the moment, it's the older folk who care for Spielberg over the kids and the subject matter.

It's entertaining and it's emotional, although only in its simplest form.

7.5/10

[volcomsocal]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Another entry in my Top 100 blah blah blah...

23. Closer (2004)

I love Closer. Excellent film.

[Steve46]

And here's today's entry in my list of 100 films to see before you die:

24. Control (2007)
Drama, Biography, 122 minutes
Directed by Anton Corbijn
Starring Sam Riley and Samantha Morton



I don't go to the theater as often as I should, but I will never forget the day I went to see Control. I love Joy Division's music and just had to know how Corbijn would portray their story on the big screen. It was only shown in one Toronto cinema, so it meant taking the subway to an area of the city that was unfamiliar to me. About six other people bothered to show up.

Music is something that I am passionate about, and sometimes that passion borders on obsession. I have flown 3,000 miles to see a Throwing Muses concert, so it isn't something I take lightly. I never got to see Joy Division live, so I wanted to feel what it might have been like. The result was a powerful experience that left the small audience in some kind of daze. The actors learned how to play the songs and they performed all the songs in the film. As soon as I heard the first few notes of the first song, every hair on my body stood up. It would have been a great time to shave.

Corbijn's choice to shoot in black and white reflected the dreary setting and bleak nature of the story. We see Curtis (Riley) taking home Bowie's Ziggy Stardust and experiencing it for the first time. The story shows his love for poetry and writing, and it's easy to understand how important music was in his life. The film feels authentic and it's clear that Corbijn's work was a labor of love.

Although the film tells a sad tale, it contains plenty of humor. It becomes clear that Curtis was a young man who genuinely loved two different women. The conflict tore him apart and those feelings were a part of every song he wrote. He mentions in the film that the audience didn't realize how much he gave during each performance, and that they always wanted him to give more. You may not appreciate the style of music, and you may even hate it, but you would probably concede that it was real rather than some kind of act. Joy Division produced music that matters.

I would recommend the movie to anyone who likes Joy Division, music, or biopics. One of my friends hated the music before seeing the film, but was moved by the story and gained some kind of appreciation for what Curtis was trying to achieve.

Last year, I went to see Peter Hook and the Light in Toronto. Hook's base was a big part of Joy Division's sound and the songs had never been played live in North America before he decided to tour. I doubted that he would do justice to the songs and almost didn't go, but I'm glad that I did. The concert was superb and the band played the songs perfectly. Hook's vocals were clearly part of a performance rather than something that ripped his life apart, but I'll always be glad I heard those songs live. It was like being transported back in time 30 years and the feel of the music pulsing through me was a unique experience.

Fans of the band will love Control, but it's worth seeing even if you have never heard of Joy Division. It gives additional meaning to the songs you may already think you know.

If you like Control:

Joy Division fans should also see the 2007 documentary, Joy Division, which goes into a lot more depth about the band.

Corbijn is a thoughtful director who approaches things in a unique way. He does a great job of showing how an assassin might actually think in The American, but don't watch it if you need a lot of action to keep you interested.

My full review of Control is in this thread.

[surfdude12]

Traffic (DVD)

Film: 4.5/5
-incredible cinematography with blue/green color palette used for Washington, traditional color palette used for California and yellow/white pallete and lens used for Mexico
-incredible theme that you can't tackle a large-scale problem without first looking at the small scale (your own backyard). how ironic that

[Show spoiler]the head drug war guy in the country can be put in charge of stopping all drugs coming into the U.S. (large scale), but can't perform the basic task of protecting his own daughter from drug use (small scale)

-whats the message? that the war on drugs is futile? that we do the best we can but in the end, the war on drugs is still run by humans who have selfish motives

[Show spoiler]like the Mexican "drug czar" who was secretly working for one of the cartels

? I don't know. Anyone?
-still undecided if this is worth a criterion purchase.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Traffic (DVD)

Film: 4.5/5
-incredible cinematography with blue/green color palette used for Washington, traditional color palette used for California and yellow/white pallete and lens used for Mexico
-incredible theme that you can't tackle a large-scale problem without first looking at the small scale (your own backyard). how ironic that

[Show spoiler]the head drug war guy in the country can be put in charge of stopping all drugs coming into the U.S. (large scale), but can't perform the basic task of protecting his own daughter from drug use (small scale)

-whats the message? that the war on drugs is futile? that we do the best we can but in the end, the war on drugs is still run by humans who have selfish motives

[Show spoiler]like the Mexican "drug czar" who was secretly working for one of the cartels

? I don't know. Anyone?
-still undecided if this is worth a criterion purchase.

I picked up the Universal Blu-ray from my local store for $4.99, but I haven't got around to seeing it yet.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I picked up the Universal Blu-ray from my local store for $4.99, but I haven't got around to seeing it yet.

super curious to know the transfer difference between Universal and Criterion, given the $20+ price difference. Of course, there is $$ value in just having the Criterion on your shelf Let me know when you watch it!

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

super curious to know the transfer difference between Universal and Criterion, given the $20+ price difference. Of course, there is $$ value in just having the Criterion on your shelf Let me know when you watch it!

I have never seen the film and don't own the Criterion, but the difference seems small:

Blu-ray.com:

Presented in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, encoded with MPEG-4 AVC and granted a 1080p transfer, Steven Soderbergh's Traffic arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Criterion.

The following text appears inside the booklet provided with this Blu-ray disc:

"Traffic is presented in the director's preferred aspect ratio of 1.78:1. This high-definition digital transfer was created on a Spirit Datacine from a 35mm interpositive. At the request of the director, the English subtitles for the Spanish sequences are presented as they were on U.S. film prints, rather than as optional subtitles. Both the full 5.1 theatrical soundtrack and the restricted-dynamic-range 2.0 soundtrack were mastered from the original 24-bit print masters.

Telecine supervisors: Steven Soderbergh, Larry Blake, Keith Sauter.
Telecine colorist: Michael Bellamy/Universal Studios Digital Services, Universal City, CA."

The presentation is quite difficult to evaluate because of the unique filtering and color adjustments performed by director Steven Soderbergh and his team. The Mexican episodes, in particular, have a very unusual look which favors blown-out contrast and edge sharpening similar but not identical to those seen in director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's 21 Grams. What is clear, to me, however, is that post production sharpening has not been performed (if you study the indoor sequences where light is restricted, you will see that additional corrections have not been applied - see screencapture #4). Furthermore, the preferred by the director 1.78:1 ratio tightens up the image composition, but while viewing the film the adjustment is next to impossible to appreciate. There are no color discrepancies with the Universal Studios release either. Brightness levels also appear identical. The Criterion release, however, appears to have an edge over the Universal Studios release with better compression. This is easy to see during a few of the outdoor sequences with Catherine Zeta-Jones (see the lunch sequence - screencapture #10). Finally, there are no problematic specs, scratches, or debris to report in this review. (Note: This is a Region-A "locked" Blu-ray disc. Therefore, you must have a native Region-A or Region-Free PS3 or SA in order to access its content).

DVDBeaver:

ADDITION: Criterion Collection - Region 'A' Blu-ray - December 11': The Criterion Blu-ray is, surprisingly, similar to the Universal in terms of removing the intended filters (like sepia/brown/orange) - as compared to SD, and interlaced Alliance Blu-ray, which retained them. The Criterion package states 'Restored high-definition digital transfer, supervised and approved by director Steven Soderbergh and supervising sound editor and rerecording mixer Larry Blake.' The 2010 Universal Blu-ray does have the higher bitrate but utilizes the VC-1 encode and has far fewer extras including missing the three valuable commentaries. I couldn't detect any differences in the audio - Criterion also using a DTS-HD Master 5.1. the Criterion does offer English subtitles for the entire feature (and burned-in for the Spanish). The Universal hi-def may sport a bit more prevalent grain. The Criterion extras, however, are paramount to appreciating the film at its loftier level. This is where the benefit of the Criterion lies - although it is region locked to 'A' for those concerned with that aspect. I seem to get a little more out of Soderbergh's film in each subsequent viewings and I'll credit the Criterion supplements and commentaries with opening my eyes wider. Recommended for those who appreciate the extensive extras!

Hi-Def Digest:

Unlike Universal's 2010 VC-1 Blu-ray release of 'Traffic' in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, Criterion has given the new 1080p transfer an 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 encode presented in "the director's preferred" 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

It's difficult to review something like 'Traffic' when the video quality is intentionally blown out and tweaked as a directorial decision. Does it look great compared to other fantastic Blu-ray releases? Not at all. But does it look exactly as the director intended it to be? Almost.

Each of the three major storylines in 'Traffic' has its own look. Mexico is blown out, Ohio and DC feature a blue tint and Southern California is bright and the most "normal" looking. A few different types of film stock and levels of exposure were used to give each their distinctive looks. The only thing that all three have in common is the extremely high amount of grain, another directorial decision that gives the film its gritty tone. (Check out the special features to find out exactly why and how the film was made to look this way.)

Given that all of the abnormalities and flaws are as they were intended to be, the overall picture quality almost completely nails the way 'Traffic' looked during its theatrical presentation, with the exception of digital noise. It's not a constant nuisance, occasionally popping up during dark sequences here and there, but know that digital noise shows up throughout the film. Some traces of DNR can be seen from time to time. When it's there, it's definitely a highly noticeable distraction. Aliasing also rears its head from time to time, but artifacts and edge enhancement are never a factor.

[KilloWertz]

The main difference between the Criterion and the Universal releases is probably the special features. The Criterion release is loaded, but I can't argue going with the Universal release for only $4.99. I'm also guessing the reviewer for the Criterion release is just more generous since he gave the audio a 5/5, but the Universal release got a 3.5/5. I can't say myself obviously since I haven't watched either disc.

As for the movie itself, I'm not sure if I've ever seen it or not. I'd be surprised if I didn't, but nothing jumps out as being overly familiar.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Traffic (DVD)

Film: 4.5/5
-incredible cinematography with blue/green color palette used for Washington, traditional color palette used for California and yellow/white pallete and lens used for Mexico
-incredible theme that you can't tackle a large-scale problem without first looking at the small scale (your own backyard). how ironic that

[Show spoiler]the head drug war guy in the country can be put in charge of stopping all drugs coming into the U.S. (large scale), but can't perform the basic task of protecting his own daughter from drug use (small scale)

-whats the message? that the war on drugs is futile? that we do the best we can but in the end, the war on drugs is still run by humans who have selfish motives

[Show spoiler]like the Mexican "drug czar" who was secretly working for one of the cartels

? I don't know. Anyone?
-still undecided if this is worth a criterion purchase.

I think the message is that irrespective of who we are or what societal role or level we occupy, the effect of drugs is present. The film shows this effect on several different groups of people, from Mexican police officers and cartels to the political angle to well-off teenagers. I don't think the film is trying to say that the war on drugs is futile--I don't think it makes any statements at all in regards to the war on drugs. Rather, I think that Soderbergh did the same thing in this movie that he did in Che--he tried to remain objective and just show the reality of things.

I own the blu but will not be picking up the Criterion because I've read that there's little difference.

[Diesel]

Haywire

It was free, so I watched it. I wanted my money back.

Now here's the thing, it wasn't a BAD movie, I wish it was, then I could have at least had some fun poking fun at it. It was just kind of...there.

It was so mind numbingly dull and boring. And no it's not because it didn't have things blowing up every few seconds, it was because the entire thing just felt so uninspired and there was not a single character to attach to.

The film never succeeded (or really tried that hard) to give me a reason to care for the main character and her story. Carano does a decent enough job in her barely speaking, lots of punching role...but that doesn't matter when the character is so completely absent of viewer attachment.

One of my biggest issues was that some of the shots and sequences seemed to just hold for EVER and felt way too long.

In fact, the entire movie itself felt way too long...and it's not even two hours long.

But still, like I said, it is not a BAD movie, it is just one I very much did not enjoy and could not wait for it to be over.

There's always two sides to the coin, Jvince gave it a 4 star rating. So if you think you'll enjoy it, go for it and I hope you come out more pleased than I did

Rating - 1/5

[Diesel]

Underworld: Awakening

I've had my ups and downs with expectations for this one since it became official that it was happening. I went in today with low expectations to not be disappointed...and it worked.

This is not a great movie. It is not even a very good movie. But it is an enjoyable movie if you are a fan of the series or the Selene character in my opinion.

I was worried about the

[Show spoiler]daughter

story line, but it worked surprisingly well.

None of the new characters are interesting in the slightest.

Just like the second film (outside of flashbacks that is), the presence of Nighy and Sheen is sorely missed because of how good they were in the first part. Though there is one vampire who I thought looked like Nighy's stunt double

...and I really don't have much else to say about it.

If you didn't enjoy any of the previous movies, you won't like this one.

If you liked either of the first two, then you'll probably like this one at least a little bit.
...or if you're just watching it because of Kate Beckinsale being uber hot, then you'll highly enjoy it

Rating - 3.5/5



I'm going to place it 3rd in the series.

Underworld - 4.5/5
Rise of the Lycans - 4.25/5
Awakening - 3.5/5
Evolution - 3/5

[Foggy]

Hunger

Yikes

This was one grizzly film Although not having a lot of stuff to do with it, I had a teacher a few years back who grew up in Ireland while this war was going on, and a few little touches here and there made me really reflect on the sort of war it was, like the Prison Officer looking under his car to check there isn't a bomb planted there before he headed off for work. Very scary place to be growing up in.

But the film's true place is with the prisoners protesting for political status. Micheal Fassbender stars as Bobby Sans, an Irish Republican who is heading the "No Blanket" or "Bath" protest, and he's not getting any attention by the UK Parliament. All the prisoners are forced to go through brutality of the police as they are forced to be beaten, groomed with garden scissors and have their rectum checked. And the police have to deal with the protests of cleaning up the urine poured through the crack of the door, and the feces smeared across the prison walls (what is it with Criteron films and feces?!?!). This is probably one of the most uncomfortable and unflinching film I've ever seen

This film isn't for the faint hearted, it's very intense in its direction and will make you squirm in your seat.

9.5/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Haywire

It was free, so I watched it. I wanted my money back.

Now here's the thing, it wasn't a BAD movie, I wish it was, then I could have at least had some fun poking fun at it. It was just kind of...there.

It was so mind numbingly dull and boring. And no it's not because it didn't have things blowing up every few seconds, it was because the entire thing just felt so uninspired and there was not a single character to attach to.

[Show spoiler]
The film never succeeded (or really tried that hard) to give me a reason to care for the main character and her story. Carano does a decent enough job in her barely speaking, lots of punching role...but that doesn't matter when the character is so completely absent of viewer attachment.

One of my biggest issues was that some of the shots and sequences seemed to just hold for EVER and felt way too long.

In fact, the entire movie itself felt way too long...and it's not even two hours long.

But still, like I said, it is not a BAD movie, it is just one I very much did not enjoy and could not wait for it to be over.

[Show spoiler]
There's always two sides to the coin, Jvince gave it a 4 star rating. So if you think you'll enjoy it, go for it and I hope you come out more pleased than I did

Rating - 1/5

This is exactly how I felt watching "Traffic" (sorry guys), "The Good German," and "Solaris" (for the first time; second time was alright). "Che," "The Informant!" and the "Ocean's" sequels were a bit if a hit-and-miss with me. So yeah, I probably won't like Soderbergh's "Haywire" either. And I have little desire to see "Contagion" either.

So far, "Ocean's 11" is the only Soderbergh film I really enjoyed.

Originally Posted by Diesel

Underworld: Awakening

[Show spoiler]
I've had my ups and downs with expectations for this one since it became official that it was happening. I went in today with low expectations to not be disappointed...and it worked.

This is not a great movie. It is not even a very good movie. But it is an enjoyable movie if you are a fan of the series or the Selene character in my opinion.

I was worried about the

[Show spoiler]daughter

story line, but it worked surprisingly well.

None of the new characters are interesting in the slightest.

Just like the second film (outside of flashbacks that is), the presence of Nighy and Sheen is sorely missed because of how good they were in the first part. Though there is one vampire who I thought looked like Nighy's stunt double

...and I really don't have much else to say about it.

If you didn't enjoy any of the previous movies, you won't like this one.

If you liked either of the first two, then you'll probably like this one at least a little bit.

...or if you're just watching it because of Kate Beckinsale being uber hot, then you'll highly enjoy it

[Show spoiler]
Rating - 3.5/5



I'm going to place it 3rd in the series.

Underworld - 4.5/5
Rise of the Lycans - 4.25/5
Awakening - 3.5/5
Evolution - 3/5

I think I will highly enjoy this film.

My current "Underworld" ranking would be:

"Underworld" 4.5/5 (more or less, eligible for my top 100 list)
"Underworld: Evolution" 4/5 (didn't like it at first, but it grew on me)
"Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" 4/5 (least favorite, but I still liked it)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Hunger

[Show spoiler]
Yikes

This was one grizzly film Although not having a lot of stuff to do with it, I had a teacher a few years back who grew up in Ireland while this war was going on, and a few little touches here and there made me really reflect on the sort of war it was, like the Prison Officer looking under his car to check there isn't a bomb planted there before he headed off for work. Very scary place to be growing up in.

But the film's true place is with the prisoners protesting for political status. Micheal Fassbender stars as Bobby Sans, an Irish Republican who is heading the "No Blanket" or "Bath" protest, and he's not getting any attention by the UK Parliament. All the prisoners are forced to go through brutality of the police as they are forced to be beaten, groomed with garden scissors and have their rectum checked. And the police have to deal with the protests of cleaning up the urine poured through the crack of the door, and the feces smeared across the prison walls

(what is it with Criteron films and feces?!?!).

[Show spoiler]This is probably one of the most uncomfortable and unflinching film I've ever seen

This film isn't for the faint hearted, it's very intense in its direction and will make you squirm in your seat.

9.5/10

Pretty brutal first half, but I found the finale to be extremely gorgeous. Glad you enjoyed it. I think I gave it a lower rating before, but it'll probably go up next time I see it.

Speaking of Criterion-grade feces, have you seen "Salo" yet? Totally not recommended, I was just curious.