The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[P@t_Mtl]

Not doing a lot of review for this weekend, I am in my Star Wars marathon. I will save you the pain of reading my extremely biase Star Wars reviews

I do have a few on the list for the coming days, Hop, La Grande Illusion, In The Mood For Love

[legendarymatt92]

Yet another film that I'd never seen but heard lots about, Flesh for Frankenstein really hit me as something I needed to see when Nicholas Winding Refn (director of last year's absolutely superb Drive and Bronson, amongst other things) stated that it was "the only film [he] wished [he] had directed" in his list of favourite cinematic classics. That is certainly high-praise from one of the most celebrated directors in recent history, which leads onto Paul Morrissey, who is one of the least celebrated, but probably one of the most distinctive and unique, filmmakers since the beginnings of cinema. Morrissey, a well-known homosexual and all round flamboyant individual, crafted films that matched his personality - campy, extremely over-the-top and slightly surreal. Add into that mix Andy Warhol, who produced this and Morrissey's other Gothic literary update Blood for Dracula, and you can understand why it has such a surrealist edge.
The first thing you notice about FFF is just how well-made it is for its time - ranging from the cinematography to the sound design, everything is pretty much top class for a time when relatively low-budget flicks like this were noticeably terrible. The look and feel of the concept is tremendously Gothic, yet laced with beginnings of satire and comedy; it isn't a straight faced horror by any stretch of the imagination, but the subtle comedy moments (the terrible accents, for example) are exceptionally clear and vivid. It's almost like an early parody of horror movies, and that makes it very fun and entertaining to watch - the plot never grows boring or tedious and, even though it's based around pretty much the same three locations, it never feels stale or forced. Morrissey clearly has flair for working with actors and writing exceptional screenplays, because the dialogue is pitch-perfect; it makes sense to us that, in the world the characters occupy, that is how they would speak and interact with each other. Each character is written very well, and the development of each is something that horror films today could take note of and emulate.
The amount of gore in the film - that got it banned in various countries, but especially here in the UK, where the BBFC had a major problem with most of the film - is unusual but, by today's standards, laughable; it never looks real and, with all respect to the filmmakers, even for that time looks pretty naff. That being said, it isn't an important part of the overall atmosphere, and the whole thing is superb fun.

9.5/10

[iam1bearcat]

because i felt the film below was so good, i wanted to post it here as well

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

10/6 Frontier(s) - 1/2



an absolute classic imo.

while most horror films move somewhat slowly and then pick up, Frontier(s) kicks off at a breakneck "wtf is going on?!" pace and never lets up for the 100 minute run time.

you want blood? you want grisly kills? you want non-stop action and relentless scares and gruesomeness? you want more blood? you want excellent atmosphere and an absolutely masterful score? you want a grittiness that the folks overseas seem to always know how to make but American horror films generally fail at?

CHECK OUT FRONTIER(S)!!!

i had absolutely no idea what was gonna happen next for most scenes. i was riveted, entertained, and was pretty damn right terrified at times. not necessarily scary the entire time because after awhile it just felt like a really awesome but super brutal and bloody action film with a strong female heroine, but that doesn't take away from how vicious the film is.

WARNING: THE FILM IS SUBTITLED! and i know some don't like watching film / haven't tried watching films with subtitles (Czar, gonna say you, but i know there are others) but honestly, this is a film where after awhile i stopped reading the subtitles because it didn't really matter. the film isn't really a thinking man's film. just the awesome visuals tell the tale, so don't feel like you can't watch it because of the subtitles.

amazing set designs, an excellent mix of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Descent, and a few other films.

while for me personally, the gritty / shaky cam, hectic pacing and camera work wasn't an issue, but i could see it being an issue for some.

well worth the $2 to rent it off amazon. recommended to absolutely everybody.

certainly not the most original film, but to me it took bits and pieces of the best films and put it together to make a very entertaining, fast-paced horror film and even though it has a lot of gruesome / "gross" out kills and moments, it doesn't come off as "torture porn" imo.

can't speak highly enough about this film. and looks damn good streaming from amazon to my PS3.

[Steve46]

Taken 2 (2012)
Action, Crime, Drama (91 minutes)
Directed by Olivier Megaton
Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen

I knew nothing about Taken when it was released in 2008, but it proved to be one of the best action movies I had ever seen. There was just enough information about the characters to care about them, and the action was intense and rather elegant.

That shouldn't surprise me because Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen wrote the script. Besson had previously grabbed my attention with Léon: The Professional, which is one of the best action movies ever made. La Femme Nikita was another notable triumph. I mention all that to explain why I was already sold on the idea of Taken 2 as soon as it was announced.

So, did it meet my lofty expectations?

The opening scenes were something of a surprise with Bryan Mills (Neeson) interacting with his ex-wife, Lenore (Janssen), and daughter, Kim (Grace) extensively. I like that we are shown how Mills has grown closer to Lenore. In the original movie, she was cold and spiteful, but the two are clearly on better terms now that Mills has used his skills to rescue Kim from her kidnappers. It made perfect sense and rang true for me.

The plot is simple. If you remember Marko from the first movie, you'll probably know that he was part of an Albanian gang. In Taken 2, Marko's father is obsessed with avenging the death of his son. He's not interested in why Marko was killed, or that he was guilty of many crimes, he's only interested in seeing Mills killed. When Mills takes Lenore and Kim on vacation to Istanbul, Marko's father instructs his gang to capture Mills and his family. He partly succeeds, but Kim escapes.

The opening setup is quite long and thorough, and I remember thinking that more than half the audience were probably anxious to see Neeson get on with the task of eliminating the opposition in as many unique and violent ways as possible. However, once the action starts, it's relentless and intense. We see car chases, shootouts, fights, threats, brief torture, and a rapidly increasing body count.

Mills wants Kim to stay out of danger, but eventually enlists her help. I'm half expecting a sequel called 'Miss Taken.'

It's unrealistic to expect a movie of this nature to be completely plausible. After all, the basic premise is that a 60-year-old man is capable of defeating gangs armed with automatic weapons. The method Mills uses to escape his kidnappers is so simple that I have to wonder why he didn't do it about 30 minutes earlier, but I'll forgive that.

The ending was quite inventive, and paves the way for another sequel should Neeson and the cast want to reprise their roles a third time.

I did have a few minor complaints, such as the kidnappers talking in English when it's obvious that they would stick to Albanian. Another minor annoyance was the use of shaky cam shots throughout most of the intense action scenes. There's a fine line between adding excitement and losing track of the events on the screen. The line was crossed a few times.

Overall, I was happy with Taken 2. It delivered more of what I liked about the first movie and added depth to the relationships between the main characters. I don't think it's quite as good as Taken because we now know what Mills is capable of, and some of the pleasure of the first movie was seeing Mills demonstrate his unique set of skills for the first time.

Taken 2 definitely works better if you have seen the first installment. Some of the actions and dialogue are direct references to events from the first movie, and you will miss some of the humor if you aren't aware of past events.

Fans of Taken will be more than happy with this worthy sequel.

Two things to remember:

1) Never agree to go on vacation with Bryan Mills.
2) If Neeson uses your taxi cab, you probably won't see it in one piece again.

Overall score 4.5/5

[KilloWertz]

Wait, what? Are Diesel and I getting a new member to the I Like Crap Club?



At least somebody really enjoyed it here.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Wait, what? Are Diesel and I getting a new member to the I Like Crap Club?



At least somebody really enjoyed it here.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Taken 2 (2012)
Action, Crime, Drama (91 minutes)
Directed by Olivier Megaton
Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen

[Show spoiler]I knew nothing about Taken when it was released in 2008, but it proved to be one of the best action movies I had ever seen. There was just enough information about the characters to care about them, and the action was intense and rather elegant.

That shouldn't surprise me because Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen wrote the script. Besson had previously grabbed my attention with Léon: The Professional, which is one of the best action movies ever made. La Femme Nikita was another notable triumph. I mention all that to explain why I was already sold on the idea of Taken 2 as soon as it was announced.

So, did it meet my lofty expectations?

The opening scenes were something of a surprise with Bryan Mills (Neeson) interacting with his ex-wife, Lenore (Janssen), and daughter, Kim (Grace) extensively. I like that we are shown how Mills has grown closer to Lenore. In the original movie, she was cold and spiteful, but the two are clearly on better terms now that Mills has used his skills to rescue Kim from her kidnappers. It made perfect sense and rang true for me.

The plot is simple. If you remember Marko from the first movie, you'll probably know that he was part of an Albanian gang. In Taken 2, Marko's father is obsessed with avenging the death of his son. He's not interested in why Marko was killed, or that he was guilty of many crimes, he's only interested in seeing Mills killed. When Mills takes Lenore and Kim on vacation to Istanbul, Marko's father instructs his gang to capture Mills and his family. He partly succeeds, but Kim escapes.

The opening setup is quite long and thorough, and I remember thinking that more than half the audience were probably anxious to see Neeson get on with the task of eliminating the opposition in as many unique and violent ways as possible. However, once the action starts, it's relentless and intense. We see car chases, shootouts, fights, threats, brief torture, and a rapidly increasing body count.

Mills wants Kim to stay out of danger, but eventually enlists her help. I'm half expecting a sequel called 'Miss Taken.'

It's unrealistic to expect a movie of this nature to be completely plausible. After all, the basic premise is that a 60-year-old man is capable of defeating gangs armed with automatic weapons. The method Mills uses to escape his kidnappers is so simple that I have to wonder why he didn't do it about 30 minutes earlier, but I'll forgive that.

The ending was quite inventive, and paves the way for another sequel should Neeson and the cast want to reprise their roles a third time.

I did have a few minor complaints, such as the kidnappers talking in English when it's obvious that they would stick to Albanian. Another minor annoyance was the use of shaky cam shots throughout most of the intense action scenes. There's a fine line between adding excitement and losing track of the events on the screen. The line was crossed a few times.

Overall, I was happy with Taken 2. It delivered more of what I liked about the first movie and added depth to the relationships between the main characters. I don't think it's quite as good as Taken because we now know what Mills is capable of, and some of the pleasure of the first movie was seeing Mills demonstrate his unique set of skills for the first time.

Taken 2 definitely works better if you have seen the first installment. Some of the actions and dialogue are direct references to events from the first movie, and you will miss some of the humor if you aren't aware of past events.

Fans of Taken will be more than happy with this worthy sequel.

Two things to remember:

1) Never agree to go on vacation with Bryan Mills.
2) If Neeson uses your taxi cab, you probably won't see it in one piece again.

Overall score 4.5/5

Whaaaaa???????

[jvince]

Hugo (2011)
dir. Martin Scorsese

The Good: The second half -- Georges Méliès' story -- is very fascinating, especially for film lovers. Ensemble cast is pretty good, with the standout being Ben Kingsley. Also love Michael Stuhlbarg's character in this.

The Bad: The first half -- Hugo's story -- or almost everything involving the eponymous character is dull. Could've been at least half an hour shorter.

The Bottom Line: Hugo may not be among Scorsese's best works, but there's enough here that makes it worth the time of any and every cinephile.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

If it helps, the second one is funnier

Is it like The Room and Birdemic?

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

in the good you put, "lots of tits".

in the bad you put, "lots of tits."

it's pretty simple, tits are awesome, so which one is it for you???

[Show spoiler]

Good because it's tits . Bad because it's overdone in a way that it felt like I was watching a movie made by a bunch of horny, douchebag teenagers. I don't know how else to explain it, but when you watch it, I guess you'll get what I mean.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Is it like The Room and Birdemic?

Not to that extreme, it's more similar to The Happening in terms of lameness to comedy

[iam1bearcat]

Man on Wire - 5/5

absolutely brilliant film! an absolutely astonishing true story of a man who is a "wire walker" and walks across the World Trade Center

at times it's almost more amazing how the tea pulled off the event (since it wasn't set up with police or WTC people) as the act itself. but man oh man, seeing the actual footage of Phillip walking across the towers... laying down on the wire! kneeling on the wire some hundreds and hundreds of feet from the ground is just jaw dropping.

i could watch this on an endless loop forever and be 100% riveted to my seat, no doubt about it.

it was almost baffling to watch as it almost seemed fake to watch Phillip walk across the WTC towers (and many other buildings as shown) with such ease and no worries. it was hard to fathom someone actually did this. i'm afraid of heights so it blew me away and my mind was blown time and time again. and again, what they went through to avoid getting caught and to set up the wire is just astounding.

everyone should watch this documentary. the amount of video footage is just amazing and really brings home just how amazing this event was and it's amazing to see how Phillip and his friends came together to pull this off. and to see his girlfriend on his back as he wire walks on a "test line" some 15 feet from the ground and do it like she weighed as much as a paperclip was awe inspiring.

absolutely riveted and glued to my seat and my eyes to the screen from start to finish. incredible

[Al_The_Strange]

My last greatest rental was Darfur

I honestly have no real knowledge of the Darfur conflict, and thus can't tell you whether or not this film has any lick of realism or accuracy. What it does seem to do, however, is take a real-life issue and expose it for the public, in the same way Rambo exposed the horrors of the Burmamese regimes or the way 5 Days of War explored the peril of journalists in Georgia. Darfur falls squarely between the two. Its purpose is to follow a group of journalists into a Darfur village, which is then invaded by the Janjaweed regime, who come along to just kill, rape, and plunder everything. You can expect a fair amount of brutality, for the film does its best to show the violence and inhumanity in a shocking manner, to drill the harrowing experience of it into the viewer's psyche. Frankly, I don't think it's anywhere as bleak or hard-hitting as Rambo, but the violence is tastefully portrayed and used effectively.

The story is pretty much described above, and like I said, I have no idea as to how accurate the film's portrayal of the country and events really is. Some of the most informed viewers might decry it as one-sided or biased. I certainly think that the journalist characters are a little too naive for their own good, and the villains borderline on being a little too evil. It's definitely a simple portrayal, but that's kinda the beauty of it; the film doesn't mince words with politics or moral complexities, it straight-up says the regime is evil.

Cinematically, the film has some jumpy hand-held camera work, but it's still not all that jarring or annoying. A lot of the imagery is pretty nice and the editing is not bad. Acting is surprisingly strong: I seriously didn't expect much out of Kiristanna Lokken, Billy Zane, or Edward Furlong, but they're barely recognizable in their roles. As I understand it, everybody was working without a script and had to improvise, but they all pull it off pretty well. This production isn't terribly huge, but it makes decent use of its given sets, props, and costumes. Music is really nice.

This film was quite the surprise. It's a shame that very few people will ever see it, because of the director. And yet, the dude did win at the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival, thanks to this film. So unless you're going to get all hung up on all those video-game films, Uwe Boll's Darfur is worth a look, especially since it might be the best it'll get for him.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: I personally don't see much wrong with it, and would at least recommend a rental.

[jvince]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
dir. Robert Wiene

The Good: Amazing set designs. Great score. Props for introducing the twist ending; I totally didn't see that coming.

The Bad: It's short, but it's also a little dull. Outdated acting. Bare bones plot. Nearly non-existent character development.

The Bottom Line: If only The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari had just as much substance as it had style, I would've loved it whole lot more. Recommended for fans of expressionist cinema.

[Foggy]

The Apartment

Charming, funny and dramatic film that shows how far a simple clever idea can go if you know where to push it in the right areas and develop it forward.

Acting is decent, script is sharp and pacing is consistent although it began to drag towards the end. Just a really good all round classic.

9/10

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Taken 2 (2012)
Action, Crime, Drama (91 minutes)
Directed by Olivier Megaton
Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen


Fans of Taken will be more than happy with this worthy sequel.

Overall score 4.5/5

I wasn't happy with the sequel and I am a big fan of Taken and Neeson...

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Ill_Be_Back

I wasn't happy with the sequel and I am a big fan of Taken and Neeson...

OK, I'll refund your money.

If you were the director, how would you fix it?

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by Steve46

OK, I'll refund your money.

If you were the director, how would you fix it?

Thanks! For starters it should never have been made, the ending for Taken was good enough for me no need for this sequel. Neeson was good in 2 but the film was too familiar and the action scenes were poorly edited.... a 1.5/5 for me

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Ill_Be_Back

Thanks! For starters it should never have been made, the ending for Taken was good enough for me no need for this sequel. Neeson was good in 2 but the film was too familiar and the action scenes were poorly edited.... a 1.5/5 for me

I didn't like the shakycam, that's for sure. What would you rate it if Taken didn't exist?

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I didn't like the shakycam, that's for sure. What would you rate it if Taken didn't exist?

Yeah that got annoying, I would rate it a 3/5 if Taken didn't exist...

[Lepidopterous]

I had a nightmare about The Sixth Sense last night. It's a little embarrassing that that movie still terrorizes my dreams from time to time, but atmospheric ghost stories scare the sh!t out of me. The Orphanage is another one I have lost sleep over.