The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

My favorite time travel movies:
Donnie Darko
It's a Wonderful Life
Pleasantville
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Run Lola Run
Looper

Back to the Future, La Jetée, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Il Mare, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are pretty good too.

Nice choices! I was going to list Midnight in Paris but it didn't blend as well with my other choices and I like it for different reasons.

[BladeRunner2007]

Dawn of the Dead (1978) 5/5

Watched the U.S. Theatrical Version (my favorite version of the film). Still the best horror and zombie movie of all time imo.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

One of those really most wanted in the Criterion thread I just hope Criterion break down soon and grant me my wish of City Lights and Picnic At Hanging Rock

City Lights is definitely one of my most wanted Criterion blu's. Along with Hiroshima Mon Amour and more Buñuel--particularly Viridiana or Exterminating Angel.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Juno (2007) - 4.5/5

[Show spoiler]Finally got around to seeing a film I knew I would enjoy, but for some reason never watched.

After 10 minutes, and after it was done, and during the entire run time, I could immediately see why people love the film and why people would also loathe the film.

The film, from start to (almost) finish is covered, baked, sprinkled, dunked and smothered in indie folklore and teeth rotting witty, snappy dialogue, which of course many will say is par for the course of any Michael Cera film.

I loved it from the get-go. Hilarious, touching, amazing music and amazing atmosphere of a small town with quirky families. nothing that hasn't been done before of course, but in Juno it's done really, really well.

very impressive

but i could see how some could say the film tries to hard (and ironically enough a lot of 1 and 2 star reviews on amazon contain the phrase, "trying too hard" in review titles) and i can see why many would be turned off by Juno herself with how she is written ("spoiled", "punk" and "selfish" are also mentioned in many reviews regarding her characters behavior and actions).

i think i will enjoy it more next time now that i know how it ends because for some reason the writer / director paint the adoptive family in a weird light and have weird dialogue and facial expressions for them. i honestly thought for a bit that a)

[Show spoiler]they didn't live in that house

, b)

[Show spoiler]they were people who kidnapped babies!

, and c)

[Show spoiler]Jason Bateman's character was a weird child sex offender or something, and if it was portrayed by anyone but Jason Bateman i would have continued to think that until the movie ended

which kind of made me uneasy and felt unnecessary for the film as it cast a weird black cloud over the seriousness and humor of the film.

in the end it was sweet, touching, hilarious and incredible, and a film i very much enjoyed

I loved it too. I have only seen it once. I should watch it again.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

City Lights is definitely one of my most wanted Criterion blu's. Along with Hiroshima Mon Amour and more Buñuel--particularly Viridiana or Exterminating Angel.

Funny you mention Hiroshima Mon Amour, it's actually playing later this week on TFO HD, it's all ready to go on my DVR

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

My favorite time travel movies:
Donnie Darko
It's a Wonderful Life
Pleasantville
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Run Lola Run
Looper

Back to the Future, La Jetée, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Il Mare, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are pretty good too.

No Triangle??????????

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Your suspicion of what my "beef" was is correct. If the Dad was going to

[Show spoiler]send her away and hide her for her own safety, why not let the husband in on the plan?

I'm guessing because the Dad would then have to tell the following things:

[Show spoiler]
(a) I'm sending her away b/c daughter killed rich dude's son
(b) Rich dude WILL kill my daughter

The husband probably won't understand why he's sending her away just based on (a)+(b), so the Dad will also have to tell:

(c) I (dad) know the rich dude will kill my daughter, because he's killed others
(d) rich dude killed your (husband) dad, and I (dad) was there

Yeah...I think now I can see why Daddy held off on telling hubby Seems like there was no way to let him in on the plan w/o exposing himself as complicit in hubby's dads murder. he confessed at the end of the film b/c by then , it didn't matter - he was already going away for killing hooker and 2 dudes

I don't know. Maybe you're right. another viewing will be good to test your interpretation!

If the story had been told in a linear fashion I would have probably written a review about "Another CRAP French film".

now that is some FUNNY SH!T

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[/SPOILER]

I loved it too. I have only seen it once. I should watch it again.

I love it three. Only good critique is we're hearing a 16 year old with the wit of about 100 combined middle-aged stand-up comedians.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Dawn of the Dead (1978) 5/5

Watched the U.S. Theatrical Version (my favorite version of the film). Still the best horror and zombie movie of all time imo.

is US Theatrical version the version on the blu-ray?

I love this film too! one of my all-time favs. I also love the walking v. running zombie debate. Hands down, walking zombies are scarier. Anyone who disagrees hasn't sat down and thought it through. I'd much rather (a) evade and be in fear of death for hours or days, before death, than (b) evade and be in fear of death for months or years, before death. THere are things worse than death - fear of imminent death - and I'd much rather that fear last hours than months!

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

is US Theatrical version the version on the blu-ray?

I love this film too! one of my all-time favs. I also love the walking v. running zombie debate. Hands down, walking zombies are scarier. Anyone who disagrees hasn't sat down and thought it through. I'd much rather (a) evade and be in fear of death for hours or days, before death, than (b) evade and be in fear of death for months or years, before death. THere are things worse than death - fear of imminent death - and I'd much rather that fear last hours than months!

Yes, the Blu-ray contains the U.S. Theatrical Version. I also prefer slow/walking zombies.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

+1. The Butterfly Effect, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Mr. Nobody, and Source Code are all among my favorite movies.

Speaking of the "Groundhog Day"-concept that fascinates me so much...

http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/10/1...d-release.html

Warner Bros. has released the full details for their upcoming sci-fi action film All You Need is Kill, which is being directed by Doug Liman and stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt. The studio also revealed that the movie will hit theaters on March 14th, 2014.

All You Need is Kill started production today, October 1st. It's an adaptation of the Japanese novel by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, and it sounds like it's going to be an insanely awesome movie! The story follows a soldier in a war against aliens who finds himself reliving his last day in battle over and over again after being killed. Because of this, he's able to become a better soldier. Cruise takes on the lead role and Blunt plays another soldier who fights alongside him.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest rental: Auschwitz

Before digging into the “meat” of this film, the DVD opened with the director discussing the purpose of the film. Were it not for that, it would have been way too easy to just assume that this is the director’s attempts to slap together shock value into a low-grade rehash of Schindler’s List. The director does underscore one key issue, however: in modern day society, the holocaust is gradually fading from memory and being dismissed or discounted by academics. The film even opens with an interview with German school kids, who clearly have no clue what happened during the holocaust or at Auschwitz. Thus, it’s the director’s intention to take these horrific events and beat the viewers over the head with them, as a way to shake the audience out of apathy.

Is the director successful? Well, it’s certainly dark and grim. The camera never shies away from showing the horrors of the gas chambers, which probably soaks up about half of the film. There are brief scenes showing children getting shot and bodies getting burned. As far as violence and shock values go, I was actually underwhelmed. I was just waiting for an all-out onslaught of horrific bloodbath of some kind, but it never came. For the most part, it was just the atmosphere, and watching a roomful of people die, that makes this film so edgy. It’s meant to be an unflinching snapshot of the place and what went on there; it’s generally more tasteful than I expected, but whether or not it truly works will likely depend on the viewer’s disposition (and bias toward the director, which will likely be the number-one obstacle for this film).

As far as the story goes, there’s not much to it. In fact, this is less of a film and more of a video essay, using the interview footage and stock footage as an introduction and conclusion, and the actual film as the body. As such, there are no real characters on display, and no plot structure. The film just illustrates the basic mass-murder process. I really couldn’t tell you if this is historically accurate at all: the actual Auschwitz facility looks way smaller and much smaller in scale than I would have thought. Chances are that the film skimps out on other details.

Not counting the interviews (which may or may not be staged, who knows?), the film looks like pretty low-budget fare, using minimal sets and a small cast to get the job done. It does the best it can develop an invoking style with the given photography and editing techniques; the camera work can be herky-jerky at times, but it’s never all that agitating. Acting is not bad, but this production generally didn’t ask for much. Writing is not substantial at all.

This film is short and small, but does have a bold point to make and sets out to make it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. In that respect, it’s not too terrible at all. But compared with established films like Schindler’s List, Life is Beautiful, The Gray Zone, or The Devil’s Arithmetic, Auschwitz is definitely at the bottom of the totem pole. The best that can be said is that it’s an earnest attempt, and it never fully capitalizes on cheap shocks or graphicness to make its point (for better or for worse).

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Content: Pretty Good | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: Maybe.









Whoa, wait a minute! This film is directed by……….UWE BOLL?! Oh frakk, that means every thing I just said is automatically discounted! This film sucks by default, now and forever!

0.5/5 (Entertainment: None | Story: None | Film: None)

Recommendation: Frakk no.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Funny you mention Hiroshima Mon Amour, it's actually playing later this week on TFO HD, it's all ready to go on my DVR

I'm not sure if I get that channel, but thanks!

Squid'll probably tune in. It's one of his favorite movies.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest rental: Auschwitz

[Show spoiler]Before digging into the “meat” of this film, the DVD opened with the director discussing the purpose of the film. Were it not for that, it would have been way too easy to just assume that this is the director’s attempts to slap together shock value into a low-grade rehash of Schindler’s List. The director does underscore one key issue, however: in modern day society, the holocaust is gradually fading from memory and being dismissed or discounted by academics. The film even opens with an interview with German school kids, who clearly have no clue what happened during the holocaust or at Auschwitz. Thus, it’s the director’s intention to take these horrific events and beat the viewers over the head with them, as a way to shake the audience out of apathy.

Is the director successful? Well, it’s certainly dark and grim. The camera never shies away from showing the horrors of the gas chambers, which probably soaks up about half of the film. There are brief scenes showing children getting shot and bodies getting burned. As far as violence and shock values go, I was actually underwhelmed. I was just waiting for an all-out onslaught of horrific bloodbath of some kind, but it never came. For the most part, it was just the atmosphere, and watching a roomful of people die, that makes this film so edgy. It’s meant to be an unflinching snapshot of the place and what went on there; it’s generally more tasteful than I expected, but whether or not it truly works will likely depend on the viewer’s disposition (and bias toward the director, which will likely be the number-one obstacle for this film).

As far as the story goes, there’s not much to it. In fact, this is less of a film and more of a video essay, using the interview footage and stock footage as an introduction and conclusion, and the actual film as the body. As such, there are no real characters on display, and no plot structure. The film just illustrates the basic mass-murder process. I really couldn’t tell you if this is historically accurate at all: the actual Auschwitz facility looks way smaller and much smaller in scale than I would have thought. Chances are that the film skimps out on other details.

Not counting the interviews (which may or may not be staged, who knows?), the film looks like pretty low-budget fare, using minimal sets and a small cast to get the job done. It does the best it can develop an invoking style with the given photography and editing techniques; the camera work can be herky-jerky at times, but it’s never all that agitating. Acting is not bad, but this production generally didn’t ask for much. Writing is not substantial at all.

This film is short and small, but does have a bold point to make and sets out to make it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. In that respect, it’s not too terrible at all. But compared with established films like Schindler’s List, Life is Beautiful, The Gray Zone, or The Devil’s Arithmetic, Auschwitz is definitely at the bottom of the totem pole. The best that can be said is that it’s an earnest attempt, and it never once uses cheap shocks or graphicness to make its point.

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Content: Pretty Good | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: Maybe.

The Hostel and Saw sequels use the whole shock-scare technique. It always irritates me because those films get to the point where I'm not even scared anymore, but just a competition of how grossed out I can get. The first Hostel had some actual terror and mystery to it though, and the first Saw is a horror classic.

The most disturbed I've been by any clip was when I stumbled on actual footage of people being trapped alive inside a burning building while the firefighters stood helpless. That probably shouldn't count though.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I'm not sure if I get that channel, but thanks!

Squid'll probably tune in. It's one of his favorite movies.

TFO is only in French and only in Canada, I like this channel because they have every night at 9 pm a movie which is always from anywhere but the USA Wonderful to discover world cinema

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

The Hostel and Saw sequels use the whole shock-scare technique. It always irritates me because those films get to the point where I'm not even scared anymore, but just a competition of how grossed out I can get. The first Hostel had some actual terror and mystery to it though, and the first Saw is a horror classic.

The most disturbed I've been by any clip was when I stumbled on actual footage of people being trapped alive inside a burning building while the firefighters stood helpless. That probably shouldn't count though.

That's the thing: I expected Auschwitz to be just like a Saw or Hostel (or Seed) movie, but it wasn't. It could be that seeing all these other disturbing movies dulled my senses.

That burning building scene sounds pretty horrific. I think the worst I've seen is actually on Uwe Boll's other movie, Seed, which starts off with actual PETA footage of animals being tortured. It's pretty sick.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I loved it too. I have only seen it once. I should watch it again.

You should. I've watched it twice and I'm usually backed up on movies all the time.

No Triangle??????????

I wouldn't put it on the list either if I made one...

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Speaking of the "Groundhog Day"-concept that fascinates me so much...

http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/10/1...d-release.html

Sounds like it could be good. I'm in. I like the director and both of the stars.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That's the thing: I expected Auschwitz to be just like a Saw or Hostel (or Seed) movie, but it wasn't. It could be that seeing all these other disturbing movies dulled my senses.

That burning building scene sounds pretty horrific. I think the worst I've seen is actually on Uwe Boll's other movie, Seed, which starts off with actual PETA footage of animals being tortured. It's pretty sick.

Getting scared is very fun and entertaining to me but getting disturbed is not pleasant at all. Maybe just a tad of it is okay such as the level of violence in I Saw the Devil. But even that can be excessive.

[Foggy]

Moonrise Kingdom

One of the strangest films about love I've ever seen.

The film is about 2 kids who are very socially challenged, possibly psychopathic who decide to run away into the forest and stay there for a few days. Meanwhile, they're getting chased down by the scouts and the girls parents. I liked it enough.

I can't decide whether the meet expectations or fell a tad short. It was a very funny film, with all the humour being typically dry like Wes Anderson films usually are. But some of the charm was lost on me, and I can't think why?

Essentially, it's a film about the children being more mature than their parents and guardians. As Bruce Willis and Ed Norton bumbles around at a lost of life, Murray and McDormand can't handle their children and their own marriage. And in the middle of this misery we have two kids who genuine love each other, but can't do anything as they're stuck so they break out and go on a fantasy trip.

The film looks very much like a pop-up children's book in the way it is filmed, with lots of symmetry and flat shots, and the narrator looking like who comes out of a goofy kids documentary, the film seems to blossom from child imagination. While the style works for the film, there become certain moments where it beings to grate and become too much, pushing you away instead of adding charm.

Most of the child actors are great, with the only one being a bit patchy was the main boy, he's not bad but he just seems to struggle getting his words out properly. Most the adult cast is terrific, and you wish you could get more of the side characters, like Murray and Schwartzman.

All in all, I really liked it, but it's just going to take a while for me to truly love it if I ever do...

9/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Getting scared is very fun and entertaining to me but getting disturbed is not pleasant at all. Maybe just a tad of it is okay such as the level of violence in I Saw the Devil. But even that can be excessive.

I certainly agree that getting disturbed by a film is unpleseant. When it comes to that, I stop looking at it as entertainment and more as an experience. The value of such an experience varies for me depending on context.

I Saw the Devil is brutal, but pretty badass; I think it's actually pretty easy to relate to the characters because they're both so wicked and you really do want to see them rip each other apart.

Movies like Saw and Hostel are redeemable for me through how strong their stories are. There are actually a bunch I seem to like, but some definitely more than others. In all respects, I really don't blame people for giving any of these a pass.

One of these days, I plan on compiling a list of the most disturbing films I have seen...