The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jvince]

In Time (2011)
dir. Andrew Niccol

The Good: Amanda Seyfried, who is flat-out, smoking hot in complete Anna Karina-esque getup. The basic concept of time as money is quite fascinating.

The Bad: Justin Timberlake is terribly miscast, it's almost as if somebody forgot to tell him this isn't an SNL skit. The dialogue is a combination of overly punny, unintentionally funny, and cringe-worthy lines. The science is totally wonky, it requires a huge suspension of disbelief in order for the viewer to enjoy the movie.

The Bottom Line: In Time sadly falls into the great-idea-bad-execution category. Niccol definitely had something there, it's just a shame that the final product feels like a rough draft. Worth a look for sci-fi fans.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Ooooooooohhhhhhhh

Moved in to my accommodation (bit of a dump, but I won't be hanging around in it that often), I took my TV and PS3 and a few films, felt like watching a film before partaaying, but which one did I pick?

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs

[Show spoiler]I'm going to write as lengthy as a review as I can explaining why I love it, because I've got time to burn!

As you all know Reservoir Dogs is number 1 to me. The opening scene hooks me straight off the bat. You're introduced to 8 guys, and you're instantly able to work out their characteristics. You know who the boss is, due to what he's wearing and the fact he is distant from the rest of the group, along with the fact he's the one that pays for the breakfast. You get that Nice Guy Eddie is his son because of what he's wearing, but he's also a lot more connected to the group of younger people. Like wise you understand Mr. White is a close friend to Joe, as he's the only one who is close enough, both in the relationship and physically, to take the book off him. Mr. Pink is weasily and will back stab anyone to benefit himself, as we see with the tips and then later at the end. Mr. Blonde is also both good friends with Nice Guy Eddie and also has some envy between Mr. White and Joe, which could boil down to his psychopathic tendencies. Mr. Brown is the one who is all talk and no pants, dying away from the line of fire due to his own stupidity. Mr. Blue is old and out of it, taking no nonsense, which could of been the thing that lead to his demise. And lastly, Mr. Orange is the one to rat out on Mr. Pink, the same way he's been ratting out to everyone, and could be his way of trying to get into Joe's comfort zone.

And that's only the opening ten minutes...

And, yes, any great film can do this, but Reservoir Dogs is the HOW TO to me at least. It's very very rough around the edges, which add a sense of charm and humility to it, it feels like a film anyone could of made if they had a good idea. It's why it works. It's a great story told badly, but with charisma and confidence. Trust me, is the words that yell out during the opening scene, it's a great story, just over look the budget issues.

Not only that, but the film is the masculine haven, it idealises men, and there are barely any women to be seen in the film, masculine dialogue, F-bombs falling 60 times a minute, everyone whipping out guns to solve problems. It's as much a glamorisation as it de-glamorises.

Yet the film never loses that element of cool, it's always laid back, making it's own craftsmanship look easy and effortless.

And, unlike every other Tarintino film, the humour comes from the characters over the situations they're placed in.

I don't believe I will ever see what I'll consider the greatest film of all time is, it just won't come along. And that's plainly because Reservoir Dogs is the most perfect imperfect film I've seen, I love the sloppiness and dog ears of the piece, yet it's so damn good. So why would I want to see a guys film who has perfected film making when this works far more better than that could ever do?

9.5/10

Good luck to you two.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Babe: Pig in the City

[Show spoiler]What an impressive piece of directorial work. George Miller created one of the most breathtaking futuristic Metropolis in this sequel to the much loved original. Replacing the heart and pathos, Miller chooses to concentrate more on thrilling set pieces and dazzling sights.

The aforementioned city is just a wonder to behold: it has ridiculously tall skyscrapers, The Statue of Liberty, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Sydney Opera House all on an island resembling Manhattan. The neighborhood resembles Venice and has very unique architecture. Watching this I was amazed at how many chances Miller took in creating this fully realized and particular world. He shoots it in such a wondrous way resembling the work of Guillermo Del Toro or even Terry Gilliam, the action set pieces are antic yet very intelligible. He places much emphasis on the kinetic: slapstick in the mode of Chaplin's Modern Times or The Gold Rush.

The plot is very much a throwaway and has none of the subtlety and emotion of the first: Babe ventures the city and falls in with misfit animals and is thrust into the hero role in the hopes of saving his friends and farm. Along the way many animals are placed in grave peril: a goldfish outside of water, Babe is chased by evil dogs, a dog and later Babe are in danger of strangultion, one of the worst was a sympathtic dog(with wheels as his hind legs) being launched from a car 30 feet (or so). I would have a problem with this, but seeing as it's executed so fearlessly and inventively, I went along with the thrills.

I'm coming to really appreciate George Miller's body of work ( Mad Max, Babe, Lorenzo's Oil) and plan to see more.

3.5/4

The best things about this film are definitely the visuals and the sets. They all looked absolutely amazing. I think I might have loved this had Miller gone all-out dark, but it's a kids' movie, so they had to put in some childish humor which I didn't find funny at all. Underrated film though.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Same here. It just never developed into anything.

I thought there was something, it's just that it didn't have that extra oomph. It didn't stick in my mind. I didn't care for it afterwards. It was just , imo.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

dammit jvince! you always know how to win me over
by the way, it's amazing how much writing those stars take up!

I didn't know you like that type of film. I guess you might like it more than I did then.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

YESSSSS!!!

Folks in this here thread should also be pleased to see "Following" coming out too. I'm wondering if I should be a Nolan completist and give it another chance...

I'm surprised not many have seen Following even up to now, given Nolan's immense popularity. I think it's one of his better films. It's like an old-school film noir. I'd definitely recommend it to fans of the genre.

[P@t_Mtl]

Swimming Pool (2003)

Heard a lot about this movie in the last 9 years and so I decided to put it on my DVR last week when it was playing. They call this movie a thriller but sorry for me it's a slepper. Boring characters, boring story. However I know exactly what was the deal and clincher for most people, nudity. Remove the nudity and the few soft porn scenes and no one would be talking about this rather lame, slow, boring none story of a movie. I know some will defend it by saying it's the ending that really sell the movie, again it does not. If you want to pretent the movie is great because the ending is strange and obscure, good for you but I won't be part of that group. I would only recommend this movie if you have trouble sleeping, will knock out right out with no trouble.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

In Time (2011)
dir. Andrew Niccol

The Good: Amanda Seyfried, who is flat-out, smoking hot in complete Anna Karina-esque getup. The basic concept of time as money is quite fascinating.

The Bad: Justin Timberlake is terribly miscast, it's almost as if somebody forgot to tell him this isn't an SNL skit. The dialogue is a combination of overly punny, unintentionally funny, and cringe-worthy lines. The science is totally wonky, it requires a huge suspension of disbelief in order for the viewer to enjoy the movie.

The Bottom Line: In Time sadly falls into the great-idea-bad-execution category. Niccol definitely had something there, it's just a shame that the final product feels like a rough draft. Worth a look for sci-fi fans.

F**king hated this thing!

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by bluearth

The Tree of Life (2011)

Proof positive that being different and crappy at the same time can get you a following. See all the crappy fads that have appeared in the past and what you have now, like the hipster movement with it's crappy style thats seen cool now because its "different", but like every other crappy fad that came and went before it will be looked back on in disgust. The Tree of Life is one of those movies. Its amazing the amount of critics who overlook it's gigantic flaws because it's "artsy" and "different."

IMO, I'd hardly call this film part of a "fad". Most of my friends still haven't even heard of it.

Pointless, lost, and desperately trying to be more then it needs to be left me exhausted after 5 minutes. After 30 minutes I was about to fall asleep. After that...? I'd rather drink spoiled milk. I've already wasted my time watching this movie and now writing this review about something thats not worthy of anyone's time, so I'll stop now.

1/5

My thoughts exactly....on most blockbuster action flicks

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Swimming Pool (2003)

[Show spoiler]Heard a lot about this movie in the last 9 years and so I decided to put it on my DVR last week when it was playing. They call this movie a thriller but sorry for me it's a slepper. Boring characters, boring story. However I know exactly what was the deal and clincher for most people, nudity. Remove the nudity and the few soft porn scenes and no one would be talking about this rather lame, slow, boring none story of a movie. I know some will defend it by saying it's the ending that really sell the movie, again it does not. If you want to pretent the movie is great because the ending is strange and obscure, good for you but I won't be part of that group. I would only recommend this movie if you have trouble sleeping, will knock out right out with no trouble.

I understand what you're saying - I've got to be honest, I haven't seen it for a while now, but the last time I watched all I really remember about the details is the nudity - but I know that it's not fast-paced and exciting for a reason; it's more about the complications of everyday life that arise from such a problem

[Show spoiler](the murder)

and how real characters are supposed to react and interact after it. I remember thinking that the way the director, Francois Ozon, crafted the tense atmosphere and downplayed character emotions was reminiscent of a Hitchcockian thriller, and that the sexual freedom the younger woman so openly flaunts was what the older woman wanted in her life. The ending was ambiguous, but not for the right reasons - I felt that it was a cop-out because they couldn't tie up the strands from the story too well, and the themes that formed the undercurrent of the story had simply dried up and turned to nothing. I do need to re-watch it at some point, though, to give it a proper review.

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think we must have seen different versions of this move.

No boring scenes, really. The Whole movie is pretty much a bore. It tried the Underworld awakening route and failed.

The Action and I mean all the action flat out sucks.....Last time I saw action this bad was in a UWe boll movie. and the acting. Well, the least said about that the better me thinks.

The Opening scene was also dumb..........wasted 10 minutes for no reason at all.

Such a shame that this franchise has turned in to.......The Original was great. The 2 Follow Ups decent and then afterlife which was bearable and now Retribution.

I so hope this franchise gets a reboot pretty quickly cause it has so much potential.

[surfdude12]

Titanic

Film: 4.5/5
-I'm a big fan of romantic epics (GWTW, English Patient), so this fit right in. Everyone knows the movie pretty well, so no need to summarize. Great coverage of themes like class-separation, doing what you want v. what other want you to do, ambition (captain told by press guy to make the ship faster), etc etc. Great film overall for this. Great plot, which can be identified by all age groups, young and old, hence why it smashed all box office sales.
-the only obvious issue is Leo's age. He looks 15, while Kate looks her age (21-22). Way too young. NOt sure who else was in the running for Leo's role, does anyone know? It did seem almost like one of those stories you read about a female H.S. teacher going out with one of her students.
-PQ: great, 4.5/5 . AQ: 5/5 (insane)

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Titanic

Film: 4.5/5
-I'm a big fan of romantic epics (GWTW, English Patient), so this fit right in. Everyone knows the movie pretty well, so no need to summarize. Great coverage of themes like class-separation, doing what you want v. what other want you to do, ambition (captain told by press guy to make the ship faster), etc etc. Great film overall for this. Great plot, which can be identified by all age groups, young and old, hence why it smashed all box office sales.
-the only obvious issue is Leo's age. He looks 15, while Kate looks her age (21-22). Way too young. NOt sure who else was in the running for Leo's role, does anyone know? It did seem almost like one of those stories you read about a female H.S. teacher going out with one of her students.
-PQ: great, 4.5/5 . AQ: 5/5 (insane)

From IMDB:

The studios wanted Matthew McConaughey, but James Cameron insisted on Leonardo DiCaprio.

Was the highest-grossing film in Japan until Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away opened.

Macaulay Culkin was considered for the role of Jack Dawson.

Christian Bale auditioned for the role of Jack Dawson, but was turned down because James Cameron didn't want two British actors playing the lead roles of two Americans.

Nicole Kidman, Madonna, Jodie Foster, Cameron Diaz and Sharon Stone were all considered for the role of Rose.

David Warner and Billy Zane both starred in Twin Peaks: Episode #2.16, although their characters do not interact.

The line, "I'd rather be his ***** than your wife", was originally spoken by Peggy Lipton as Norma Jennings in Twin Peaks: Episode #2.16.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Titanic

Film: 4.5/5
-I'm a big fan of romantic epics (GWTW, English Patient), so this fit right in. Everyone knows the movie pretty well, so no need to summarize. Great coverage of themes like class-separation, doing what you want v. what other want you to do, ambition (captain told by press guy to make the ship faster), etc etc. Great film overall for this. Great plot, which can be identified by all age groups, young and old, hence why it smashed all box office sales.
-the only obvious issue is Leo's age. He looks 15, while Kate looks her age (21-22). Way too young. NOt sure who else was in the running for Leo's role, does anyone know? It did seem almost like one of those stories you read about a female H.S. teacher going out with one of her students.
-PQ: great, 4.5/5 . AQ: 5/5 (insane)

Awesome.

Just got my copy and looked at it. Definitely one of the best releases this year. And I can finally ditch my hulking 3-disc DVD.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I understand what you're saying - I've got to be honest, I haven't seen it for a while now, but the last time I watched all I really remember about the details is the nudity - but I know that it's not fast-paced and exciting for a reason; it's more about the complications of everyday life that arise from such a problem

[Show spoiler](the murder)

and how real characters are supposed to react and interact after it. I remember thinking that the way the director, Francois Ozon, crafted the tense atmosphere and downplayed character emotions was reminiscent of a Hitchcockian thriller, and that the sexual freedom the younger woman so openly flaunts was what the older woman wanted in her life. The ending was ambiguous, but not for the right reasons - I felt that it was a cop-out because they couldn't tie up the strands from the story too well, and the themes that formed the undercurrent of the story had simply dried up and turned to nothing. I do need to re-watch it at some point, though, to give it a proper review.

I just felt like there was no point to the entire thing. Older lady who is frustrated just so happen to meet a young rather lose woman. Was she real or not, did it happen? It really did not work for me at all.

[P@t_Mtl]

Cannonball Run II (1984)

The gang is back for another race. I bought the Blu-ray of the first movie last November and I will probably get the second movie as well if it come's out even if it's not as good as the first one. Mostly these movies are just plain silly. They do show Jackie Chan in his North American debut even if most people believe that was Rumble In The Bronx 15 years later. Plot is simple, jokes are simple, just of bunch a cars, Hollywood stars and some previous stars who were as been by then. What can I say it just work for me

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Steve46

From IMDB:

The studios wanted Matthew McConaughey, but James Cameron insisted on Leonardo DiCaprio.

Was the highest-grossing film in Japan until Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away opened.

Macaulay Culkin was considered for the role of Jack Dawson.

Christian Bale auditioned for the role of Jack Dawson, but was turned down because James Cameron didn't want two British actors playing the lead roles of two Americans.

Nicole Kidman, Madonna, Jodie Foster, Cameron Diaz and Sharon Stone were all considered for the role of Rose.

David Warner and Billy Zane both starred in Twin Peaks: Episode #2.16, although their characters do not interact.

The line, "I'd rather be his ***** than your wife", was originally spoken by Peggy Lipton as Norma Jennings in Twin Peaks: Episode #2.16.

thanks for that.

McConaughey would have been better, IMO, for the age factor. Leo was better , to convey the boy-ish, child aspect of Jack. But certain scenes showed his character break down in realism, like

[Show spoiler]when he's eating dinner with Rose's family and starts a monologue about the meaning of life and how he doesn't take life for granted, takes it as it comes, sleeps under bridge last night and yet is today eating dinner with millionaires....in spite of how I WISHED a poor kid could bust out those lines under those circumstances, I know in my heart (cold as ice) that its literally impossible. hence, either give us a slighter older/realistic jack or dumb down leo

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

I'm surprised not many have seen Following even up to now, given Nolan's immense popularity. I think it's one of his better films. It's like an old-school film noir. I'd definitely recommend it to fans of the genre.

I loved it. Its twisty good fun.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

F**king hated this thing!

I could see why. I thought it was kinda decent despite all its flaws. Had to turn my brain off though.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I loved it. Its twisty good fun.

[Al_The_Strange]

Just watched "Cabin in the Woods"

First half of the film: mmm hmmm, yep, this is alright.

Second half of the film: DDAAAAAMMNNNN!!!!!



...will have to write a proper review later, after I recovered.

[Al_The_Strange]

Okay, I recovered.

Next greatest blind-buy: “Cabin in the Woods”

You know how these silly horror movies go: a bunch of stupid kids get together in some cabin in the middle of nowhere, and get killed off one-by-one by some kind of scary threat. It’s become such a standard formula that it’s become clichéd. So here again, we have a film where a bunch of stupid kids venture into…guess where? A cabin in the woods! You just know something scary will happen to them. The key thing that makes this film stand out so much is that this isn’t just a normal cabin in the woods: it’s really an elaborate trap being controlled by outside forces. The kids in this film are not so much zombie-fodder as they are rats in a maze, being herded to their doom by a bunch of guys in an operations center. Reasons for that are gradually unveiled. Just as the characters use the cabin in the woods as a clever ruse for their operations, the film itself uses the cabin-in-the-woods plot mechanic as a way to lure audiences into the standard horror movie setup. Then the film pulls the carpet underneath them.

In spite of this setup, the film starts off looking like a typical horror fare. To break up the monotony of watching these kids go through the motions, the film cuts back and forth between the cabin and the control room, and it interspaces some amusing dialogue throughout. By the second half, however, the film takes some very unexpected twists and turns. The climax is an incredible explosion of bloody mayhem and jaw-dropping surprises. By the film’s end, I swear that it is one heck of a horror film unlike no other.

Because the film takes a standard formula and builds so much around it, I give it a lot of credit for its core concept and its execution. I was left wondering why the film never once bothered to keep the control room scenario a secret; surely, it would have been a heck of a mind-bender if the audience discovered they were being controlled at the end of the film, right? I realize one thing though: done that way, audiences might have given up before reaching such a revelation, because it would have really been just the same old clichéd horror spiel. It’s actually pretty brilliant how the film shows all its cards right off the bat, because it keeps the audience invested for the whole picture. With its incredible climax, it all pays off and it never once feels like its pandering or being pretentious. The characters in this film are never all that deep, but they have some very colorful personalities, and it is easy to relate to most of them. Overall, the story is simultaneously original and awesome. It ought to rank as one of many stories I wish I could have written myself!

The film looks slick and stylish, with good photography and editing. Acting is decent: Chris Hemsworth easily steals the show, given his recent rise in reputation, and he does play a good jock. Credit should also be given to Kristen Connolly and Fran Kranz, and the rest of the cast is not bad either. Writing is pretty witty at times; the overall quality is good. This production has some good looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music is alright (was happy to hear some NIN during the end credits).

This film takes the standard horror formula and fills it with enough surprises, humor, and originality to turn something stagnant into an enthralling thrill ride. In fact, you could say this is one of those rare films that takes an ordinary subject and makes it extraordinary. As such, it comes highly recommended!

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Yes!

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

I'm surprised not many have seen Following even up to now, given Nolan's immense popularity. I think it's one of his better films. It's like an old-school film noir. I'd definitely recommend it to fans of the genre.

I didn't even know it existed until recently. I'm guessing that's the case with a lot of people though.

I am considering blind buying the Criterion release, once it falls into a Barnes and Noble sale though of course. Not really on purpose, but this would be one of the only Christopher Nolan films I don't own yet on Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Okay, I recovered.

Next greatest blind-buy: “Cabin in the Woods”

[Show spoiler]You know how these silly horror movies go: a bunch of stupid kids get together in some cabin in the middle of nowhere, and get killed off one-by-one by some kind of scary threat. It’s become such a standard formula that it’s become clichéd. So here again, we have a film where a bunch of stupid kids venture into…guess where? A cabin in the woods! You just know something scary will happen to them. The key thing that makes this film stand out so much is that this isn’t just a normal cabin in the woods: it’s really an elaborate trap being controlled by outside forces. The kids in this film are not so much zombie-fodder as they are rats in a maze, being herded to their doom by a bunch of guys in an operations center. Reasons for that are gradually unveiled. Just as the characters use the cabin in the woods as a clever ruse for their operations, the film itself uses the cabin-in-the-woods plot mechanic as a way to lure audiences into the standard horror movie setup. Then the film pulls the carpet underneath them.

In spite of this setup, the film starts off looking like a typical horror fare. To break up the monotony of watching these kids go through the motions, the film cuts back and forth between the cabin and the control room, and it interspaces some amusing dialogue throughout. By the second half, however, the film takes some very unexpected twists and turns. The climax is an incredible explosion of bloody mayhem and jaw-dropping surprises. By the film’s end, I swear that it is one heck of a horror film unlike no other.

Because the film takes a standard formula and builds so much around it, I give it a lot of credit for its core concept and its execution. I was left wondering why the film never once bothered to keep the control room scenario a secret; surely, it would have been a heck of a mind-bender if the audience discovered they were being controlled at the end of the film, right? I realize one thing though: done that way, audiences might have given up before reaching such a revelation, because it would have really been just the same old clichéd horror spiel. It’s actually pretty brilliant how the film shows all its cards right off the bat, because it keeps the audience invested for the whole picture. With its incredible climax, it all pays off and it never once feels like its pandering or being pretentious. The characters in this film are never all that deep, but they have some very colorful personalities, and it is easy to relate to most of them. Overall, the story is simultaneously original and awesome. It ought to rank as one of many stories I wish I could have written myself!

The film looks slick and stylish, with good photography and editing. Acting is decent: Chris Hemsworth easily steals the show, given his recent rise in reputation, and he does play a good jock. Credit should also be given to Kristen Connolly and Fran Kranz, and the rest of the cast is not bad either. Writing is pretty witty at times; the overall quality is good. This production has some good looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music is alright (was happy to hear some NIN during the end credits).

This film takes the standard horror formula and fills it with enough surprises, humor, and originality to turn something stagnant into an enthralling thrill ride. In fact, you could say this is one of those rare films that takes an ordinary subject and makes it extraordinary. As such, it comes highly recommended!

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Yes!

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds darn near perfect!

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

I have this arriving from Amazon... whenever the UPS driver decides to show up. I look forward to watching it, possibly as early as this weekend even though I'm backed up on movies.

[P@t_Mtl]

Mirror Mirror (2012)

I know my review will get probably shot down by a lot of people but here is goes. I actually enjoyed it and found it to be a fun, cute little movie. I like these movies that turn fairy tales on their head and in the process don't think of themselves too seriously. That is pretty much what this movie does. It reminded me a little of The Princess Bride. The actors did a pretty good with what was given and the movie was far from boring to me. Also the fact that they kept things very light was a plus. While I suspect I will enjoy the other Snow White movie, I will probably not like it as much since it's going to have a darker tone to it. I would recommend Mirror Mirror to anyone who enjoy fairy tales and still as a sense of humour

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

IMO, I'd hardly call this film part of a "fad". Most of my friends still haven't even heard of it.



My thoughts exactly....on most blockbuster action flicks

Zing

Originally Posted by jvince

I could see why. I thought it was kinda decent despite all its flaws. Had to turn my brain off though. :

It was just too much stupid and nowhere enough flash to make it cool

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Just watched "Cabin in the Woods"

First half of the film: mmm hmmm, yep, this is alright.

Second half of the film: DDAAAAAMMNNNN!!!!!



...will have to write a proper review later, after I recovered.

Goddamn told you so