The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[dag]

It may be best to describe Spring Breakers as a lengthy music video. Certainly, I couldn't take this movie at all seriously. Hot - and I do mean hot - chicks, booze, drugs, sun, surf, parties, sex, and guns. I can only guess how much fun James Franco had on the set, able to go all gangsta ("Look at my s---! Look at my s---!") with the cornrows, tatts, "Franklins", fake teeth, and guns. I don't know the young women who play the anomie-plagued college girls out to par-tay, but they did their job of looking hot. The dark finale plays out as ridiculous. Really, the movie is just a joy ride. Take it for what it's worth.

[jvince]

Puss in Boots (2011)
dir. Chris Miller

The Good: Voice acting is okay. Ohhh Cat is somewhat amusing.

The Bad: The characters are bland. Story is predictable, contrived, and uninspired. Worst of all, most of the jokes fall flat. And unlike Shrek, they did not fully exploit the franchise's vast fairy-tale world.

The Bottom Line: Puss in Boots could have been a worthwhile spin-off, but sadly, it's nothing but a lazy cash grab lacking in laughs and originality.

[BladeRunner2007]

Resident Evil: Retribution 4/5

Yes, many scenes were cut out or heavily shortened. Promised things were left out, too. Like Alice's origin. But the movie was still amazing. Loved its fast pacing. No boring scenes, everything flowed nicely. The action was amazing and that opening scene.... WOW! Jill was pretty wooden. Watching her shooting guns was cringe worthy haha. Leon and Barry mostly apppeared in names only, but were still kick ass imo. Jill vs. Alice was much better than I expected. Ada rocked as well. Liked that it wasn't so focused on Alice. It also felt way more like a horror movie and like a video game at once. Moscow, Tokyo and Suburban scenes were sick, man. Loved the cinematography, too. Very beautiful looking movie. The score is pretty lame when you just listen to it. But it works in the movie. Just proves once again, that if you combine the right music with the right images, you get a satisfying result. Loved the ending. Imo Paul has done a wonderful job with this film. Can't wait to see it again and own it on Blu-ray. Loved the theatrical cut. Hope the alternate cut is even better.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

Puss in Boots (2011)


The Bad: , they did not fully exploit the franchise's vast fairy-tale world.

Wow. I thought they did. At times it even felt a tiny bit over done. Trips up the beanstalk to the worlds in the clouds, etc.

[Foggy]

Probably won't have a new review up for a while now, as I'm moving all the way down to York tomorrow and heading to Uni

[Steve46]

The Hunger Games

The Top 5 films at the box office (worldwide) this year are: The Avengers ($1.5 billion), The Dark Knight Rises ($1 billion), Ice Age: Continental Drift ($836 million), The Amazing Spider-Man ($744 million) and The Hunger Games ($645 million). In the US, The Hunger Games ranks third behind The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. It's clear that comic book heroes sell, and other key elements are action and conflict. The Hunger Games aims to give us a new fantasy hero to follow after the conclusion of the Harry Potter franchise.

Does it succeed?

The movie is an adaptation of the first part of a trilogy, written by Suzanne Collins, which was initially aimed at young adults. But, like the Harry Potter series, the trilogy appeals to readers of all ages. I can't comment on the quality of the books because I haven't read them, so I don't know how faithful the movie adaptation is. All I can judge is how well the story works on the big screen. The second movie in the series is set for a 2013 release, while the final part of the trilogy will be split into two movies. So, to answer my question, The Hunger Games is a resounding success as a financial venture and it's enormously popular.

Financial success is one thing, but is the movie worth your time? I guess that depends on what you find entertaining. Let me describe what you can expect.

The story opens with a glimpse into the life of Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence). We learn that she lives in one of the poorest of twelve districts in Panem, and that food is scarce. She feeds her mother and sister by hunting for game in the woods and she's a gifted archer. The twelve districts hold a lottery each year to select a boy and girl to represent them. The 24 children will fight to the death and only a single victor will survive. When Katniss sees her young sister chosen, she volunteers to take her place. The chosen boy from District 12 is Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson).

That's all we are told about life in District 12. This is not a drama in which we learn about the struggle to live under such a regime, it's more of an action movie. The story moves on quickly and we are shown the sharp contrast between District 12 and the Capitol, where the population is wealthy and the games are seen as nothing more than a form of entertainment. Katniss and Peeta are interviewed on television by host Caesar Flickerman (Tucci). The Capitol is presented as weird and decadent, and most people look like extras from Amadeus. One character looks to be based on Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter. I had the impression that these people were weird for the sake of being weird and it didn't feel convincing.

The movie plays out like an American version of Battle Royale with elements from The Running Man added for good measure. Those in control of the game can intervene at will using computers. Sometimes they will send medicine, while at other times they will harm or kill some of the contestants. It's all a grotesque manipulation aimed at entertaining the population in the Capitol.

Director Gary Ross is a gifted storyteller, and he also has writing credits for Big, Pleasantville, and Seabiscuit. Unlike all three of those movies, I found that The Hunger Games lacked depth. It's obvious why I am supposed to root for Katniss as she risks her own life to save her sister, but there aren't enough background details to make me connect with her strongly. It felt more like a cynical plot device than anything that was remotely real.

So, for me, The Hunger Games became something of a comic book. There is an attempt at showing group dynamics. Who will work together? At what point will they try to kill each other? Who will take their chances alone? What skills will each of the characters have? How inventive will the deaths be? But the attempt is flawed because some of the most dangerous contestants are displayed as sneering idiots, and it detracts from the seriousness of the situation. This is supposed to be a battle for survival, not a comedy?

I'm trying to give a balanced review, but some of the battles are rather silly. That's not to say that the movie doesn't have a few good moments. One alliance in particular did resonate with me and I reacted emotionally to the death of one character.

My overall impression is one of sadness. Not because of the death of some of the characters, but at what we are becoming as a society. Do we really need to see children fight to the death in order to be entertained? As with modern comedies, we are relying more on shock value than good writing. Katniss Everdeen was portrayed well by a promising actress, but original ideas were few and far between. You know almost exactly what to expect from The Hunger Games before it begins, and most events are thoroughly predictable.

The next three movies will be a huge success, I am sure, but I'm not anxiously awaiting their release. I'm glad that I avoided The Hunger Games in theaters and waited to borrow the Blu-ray from a friend. Don't label me as a prude or someone who is against violence in movies. One of my favorites is Kill Bill, but, unlike the portrayal of Katniss Everdeen, I was shown enough background to care about what happened to The Bride.

This movie does have a huge audience as I outlined at the beginning. If you are the kind of moviegoer who enjoys action, good presentation, and special effects, The Hunger Games will entertain you. You'll need to switch your brain off for a couple of hours, but movies like this do have their place. I guess that's why they get made. I am left wondering about the book and how much was left out. Don't let this review stop you from buying the Blu-ray (which looks and sounds fantastic) or checking out the movie for yourself. I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

3/5

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Is there a plan for a criterion release of this movie in the near future?The image must be epic if done right.Have a BD release from somewhere,but that didn't do it much justice

Yup. The Qatsi trilogy is coming soon on Criterion Blu-ray. Heck, it might even be among the ones announced next week.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i might as well just give it (at least) 4/5 right now without seeing it!

I know you'll love it, Bearcat.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Wow, that spoiler really sucks. I don't get some directors fascination with having to have

[Show spoiler]depressing endings for some films only for the sake of not having a happy ending.

I would have been pissed.

I think you missed this question, but I take it the better cut is the one that is on the Blu-ray release, correct?

Yeah the Tony Scott version. I have to say that the original ending has one of the best images of this or any Tony Scott film: When Alabama's face fades onto an image of a sunset on a beach. Let me look for it...

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jvince

Koyaanisqatsi (1982)
dir. Godfrey Reggio

The Good: Epic cinematography. Epic score. Cinematographer Ron Fricke and composer Philip Glass are geniuses.

The Bad: Camera work is not as smooth and steady as Baraka's. Just a minor quibble, really (and I'm sure Criterion will fix some of them).

The Bottom Line: Koyaanisqatsi is one heck of an amazing experience that is guaranteed to leave you speechless. Highly recommended.

Yeah can Zach Snyder stop ruining/ ripping other peoples works of art: Bjork, Zeppelin and every featured artist on sucker punch; Jimi, Simon &Garfunkel, Romero and THE THEME FROM THIS MOVIE!

[iam1bearcat]

last weekend (or was it the one before? ) i was severely sick and watched two documentaries from amazon. i don't quite remember all the details, but they were interesting... especially the second one. i really felt like i was on drugs (and so were the filmmakers) with how odd the experience was ...granted i was on drugs, i was on Nyquil and some other stuff for a mix of my allergies and cold since my doctor didn't know which was really causing issues so he gave me like, 4 different things which i probably shouldn't have mixed together lol

anyways...

Food Inc. - 3.5/5

was a pretty interesting and gross look at how our food is made - or lack thereof. it really focuses on meat and how all our meat essentially comes from three companies and how farms are not what farms used to be and how companies hold them hostage. some lady tells a sad story about her son who died from meat poisoning and how the meat wasn't pulled until 10 days AFTER he died and how she's fighting to make regulations on meat more strict. was a solid documentary, but seems almost impossible to change how you eat unless you become a vegetarian (ick! ) and even then it's still incredibly difficult.

Cocaine Cowboys - 5/5 or 3/5, can't decide

here we go. this 2.5 hour documentary (yes, 2.5 hours!) talks about the cocaine boom in Florida (mainly Miami i believe) in the 80's. we talk mostly with a guy who was a drug runner from NY and another who flew the planes back and forth from Central American countries to Miami.

was a very interesting, yet chaotic journey. sooooooo much information and soooo much talking. honest to god no one stopped talking for longer than 4 seconds for the entire run time. and then there were random collages of pictures of money, drugs, women, cars, guns, police, sirens, noise effects, screaming, horses and latino music all blurred into one i swear i had a nosebleed while watching because my brain couldn't comprehend what i was watching (and no, not from cocaine ). it was an insane journey, but again, very interesting

certainly not a very intelligent documentary and certainly seemed to tell more of personal stories than the overall affect of the drug, but whatever, it was a neat viewing.

[dag]

Argo is an excellent thriller about the CIA's efforts to rescue six American embassy staff hiding with the Canadian ambassador in Tehran. Ben Affleck does a very good job of ratcheting up the suspense while incorporating broad humour. Indeed, the script is full of good one-liners (but I won't spoil them!). The feeling of the times is also accurately captured. My God, those clothes! Those glasses!

Every Canadian will like this film.

[dag]

While I know it is well intentioned, and earnest about its devastating subject, I was disappointed by Rhino Season. An Iranian-Kurdish poet is imprisoned for thirty years after the Islamic revolution. He and his wife are brutalized. After ten years, she is released and told her husband his dead. Many years later, he, too, is finally released, and he goes in search of her and their antagonist who caused them such injustice.

I found the movie very distant in tone, and very trying to sit through. The symbolism that is employed didn't work for me at all. There are some striking images, but ultimately I was left indifferent to what transpired on screen.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by dag

Argo

[Show spoiler]is an excellent thriller about the CIA's efforts to rescue six American embassy staff hiding with the Canadian ambassador in Tehran. Ben Affleck does a very good job of ratcheting up the suspense while incorporating broad humour. Indeed, the script is full of good one-liners (but I won't spoil them!). The feeling of the times is also accurately captured. My God, those clothes! Those glasses!

Every Canadian will like this film.

I look forward to watching Argo. It will be a while since I don't plan on seeing it in the theater, but I most definitely will when it comes out on Blu-ray.

[jvince]

The Road (2009)
dir. John Hillcoat

The Good: Incredible performances by Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee. Even Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall, and Michael Kenneth Williams are amazing despite their short screen times. Very human and very engrossing. Perfectly balances depressing and uplifting moments. Coke.

The Bad: Story's a little contrived. The ending could have been handled a little better (but I guess it kind of works since it gets its point across).

The Bottom Line: The Road is one of the more realistic post-apocalyptic films out there. Recommended for those who are into character dramas and parables.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by dag

Argo is an excellent thriller about the CIA's efforts to rescue six American embassy staff hiding with the Canadian ambassador in Tehran. Ben Affleck does a very good job of ratcheting up the suspense while incorporating broad humour. Indeed, the script is full of good one-liners (but I won't spoil them!). The feeling of the times is also accurately captured. My God, those clothes! Those glasses!

Every Canadian will like this film.

If somebody told me ten years ago that Ben Affleck would become a great director, I would've thought that person is totally . I'm a huge fan of Gone Baby Gone and The Town, so I really can't wait to see this one.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by jvince

Yup. The Qatsi trilogy is coming soon on Criterion Blu-ray. Heck, it might even be among the ones announced next week.

Thanks.Can't wait

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Hunger Games

[Show spoiler]The Top 5 films at the box office (worldwide) this year are: The Avengers ($1.5 billion), The Dark Knight Rises ($1 billion), Ice Age: Continental Drift ($836 million), The Amazing Spider-Man ($744 million) and The Hunger Games ($645 million). In the US, The Hunger Games ranks third behind The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. It's clear that comic book heroes sell, and other key elements are action and conflict. The Hunger Games aims to give us a new fantasy hero to follow after the conclusion of the Harry Potter franchise.

Does it succeed?

The movie is an adaptation of the first part of a trilogy, written by Suzanne Collins, which was initially aimed at young adults. But, like the Harry Potter series, the trilogy appeals to readers of all ages. I can't comment on the quality of the books because I haven't read them, so I don't know how faithful the movie adaptation is. All I can judge is how well the story works on the big screen. The second movie in the series is set for a 2013 release, while the final part of the trilogy will be split into two movies. So, to answer my question, The Hunger Games is a resounding success as a financial venture and it's enormously popular.

Financial success is one thing, but is the movie worth your time? I guess that depends on what you find entertaining. Let me describe what you can expect.

The story opens with a glimpse into the life of Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence). We learn that she lives in one of the poorest of twelve districts in Panem, and that food is scarce. She feeds her mother and sister by hunting for game in the woods and she's a gifted archer. The twelve districts hold a lottery each year to select a boy and girl to represent them. The 24 children will fight to the death and only a single victor will survive. When Katniss sees her young sister chosen, she volunteers to take her place. The chosen boy from District 12 is Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson).

That's all we are told about life in District 12. This is not a drama in which we learn about the struggle to live under such a regime, it's more of an action movie. The story moves on quickly and we are shown the sharp contrast between District 12 and the Capitol, where the population is wealthy and the games are seen as nothing more than a form of entertainment. Katniss and Peeta are interviewed on television by host Caesar Flickerman (Tucci). The Capitol is presented as weird and decadent, and most people look like extras from Amadeus. One character looks to be based on Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter. I had the impression that these people were weird for the sake of being weird and it didn't feel convincing.

The movie plays out like an American version of Battle Royale with elements from The Running Man added for good measure. Those in control of the game can intervene at will using computers. Sometimes they will send medicine, while at other times they will harm or kill some of the contestants. It's all a grotesque manipulation aimed at entertaining the population in the Capitol.

Director Gary Ross is a gifted storyteller, and he also has writing credits for Big, Pleasantville, and Seabiscuit. Unlike all three of those movies, I found that The Hunger Games lacked depth. It's obvious why I am supposed to root for Katniss as she risks her own life to save her sister, but there aren't enough background details to make me connect with her strongly. It felt more like a cynical plot device than anything that was remotely real.

So, for me, The Hunger Games became something of a comic book. There is an attempt at showing group dynamics. Who will work together? At what point will they try to kill each other? Who will take their chances alone? What skills will each of the characters have? How inventive will the deaths be? But the attempt is flawed because some of the most dangerous contestants are displayed as sneering idiots, and it detracts from the seriousness of the situation. This is supposed to be a battle for survival, not a comedy?

I'm trying to give a balanced review, but some of the battles are rather silly. That's not to say that the movie doesn't have a few good moments. One alliance in particular did resonate with me and I reacted emotionally to the death of one character.

My overall impression is one of sadness. Not because of the death of some of the characters, but at what we are becoming as a society. Do we really need to see children fight to the death in order to be entertained? As with modern comedies, we are relying more on shock value than good writing. Katniss Everdeen was portrayed well by a promising actress, but original ideas were few and far between. You know almost exactly what to expect from The Hunger Games before it begins, and most events are thoroughly predictable.

The next three movies will be a huge success, I am sure, but I'm not anxiously awaiting their release. I'm glad that I avoided The Hunger Games in theaters and waited to borrow the Blu-ray from a friend. Don't label me as a prude or someone who is against violence in movies. One of my favorites is Kill Bill, but, unlike the portrayal of Katniss Everdeen, I was shown enough background to care about what happened to The Bride.

This movie does have a huge audience as I outlined at the beginning. If you are the kind of moviegoer who enjoys action, good presentation, and special effects, The Hunger Games will entertain you. You'll need to switch your brain off for a couple of hours, but movies like this do have their place. I guess that's why they get made. I am left wondering about the book and how much was left out. Don't let this review stop you from buying the Blu-ray (which looks and sounds fantastic) or checking out the movie for yourself.

I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

3/5

We.

[legendarymatt92]

Having read the books, seeing the film was something I was both hesitant and interested in doing. The first, directed by Gary Ross (of Pleasantville fame), completely passed me by in the time at the cinema, and so I waited for the home release to catch up with it. This is a review of the DVD version of it, which is the UK theatrical release cut and has a 12 rating.

The first thing you understand about Hunger Games is how much other people have either over-hyped it and claimed it to be one of the best science fiction films ever, or hated it and made scathing comments about how bad it is. Now, for me, the truth lies somewhere in between - it certainly isn't perfect, but it is an entertaining and damning look at a future where the Government has assumed control over every part of life, where freedom is a liberty that no one is allowed and where children are forced to fight to the death in a pseudo-ritualistic event held annually. The barbarity of the Games is something that could have been expanded on in a better way, but that's only because of my major complaint about the film is that it doesn't build up the tension before the Games well, choosing to opt out and rush in order to include everything in the first book in a short time-frame, something that they really shouldn't have done (in a perfect world, it probably would have been better to make the first book as two separate films, giving themselves more time to expand upon the important themes at its heart, but I understand why they didn't, and couldn't, do that here). The central performances are superb - Lawrence is especially brilliant, her every word affecting the audience's emotions, completely believable as Everdeen, a girl whose only reason to continue living is hope. Despite being somewhat mis-cast, Harrelson does a good job as Haymitch, the mentor who wants to do nothing more than drink and forget, and the realisation of the Capitol is utterly brilliant; it is an exact replication of what greed does to people in power, and the sequence where they first enter is probably one of the most engrossing, and disturbing, moments in the whole film. I loved what the film was trying to say about the human condition, how much emotion it had (whilst the director kept the film a curious distance from it) and how well the action was handled - it was barbaric and cruel, a game for those in charge but survival for those in the arena. I just hated how quickly the film wanted to get to that point.

7.5 out of 10.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by dag

Argo is an excellent thriller about the CIA's efforts to rescue six American embassy staff hiding with the Canadian ambassador in Tehran. Ben Affleck does a very good job of ratcheting up the suspense while incorporating broad humour. Indeed, the script is full of good one-liners (but I won't spoil them!). The feeling of the times is also accurately captured. My God, those clothes! Those glasses!

Every Canadian will like this film.

[Show spoiler]

holy smokes i thought this was Matthew Fox at first! doesn't even look like Affleck until i looked up who it was, then it made sense and now i see it. it's always amazing what a beard does to a person to make them look very different (especially for a guy )

[iam1bearcat]

starting over

a few months ago i said i was going to "start over" with films and start grading films on a new scale. now that i am settled into my new apartment (been here three months, but with moving, getting a new car and getting a promotion at work it's been a hectic three months!) i feel i am at a point where i can really begin to dive into all that film has to offer.

so, mentally i am "erasing" every film i have seen from memory to the best that i can. my grading scale will be in the numerical format of 1-5 at .5 intervals.

i will be keeping track of every film i have seen in an Excel spreadsheet and writing mediocre reviews on here for everyone to see and probably not read

thinking of starting tonight with "Say Anything", a film i haven't seen for a very long time.