The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Skyfall

How important is James Bond to me?

Back when I was a young child, around 4 to the age of 8, ITV (TV channel to those who can't work it out) threw Bond marathons every year or two, showing a Bond film each Wednesday. Starting at 8 o'clock and ending sometime after 11 due to the awful mandatory splicing of the 10 o'clock news in the middle of films, I used to stay awake all night and watch them, or at least fell asleep during the news.

Needless to say, Bond is the single purpose I am here on this website now. It spawned my love of film and started my journey to learn about film and seek a job within the industry.

Yet I often forget that this is where I began, simply watching these often silly and dated spy films in my bed as a little child, with a Woody the Cowboy doll next to me, ready to watch the exploits of either Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. And yet so much of why I love films come from them, the way they capture the imagination, the espionage, the exotic location that seemed other worldly to my common English boy eyes, and even the goofiness.

So, with this being 50 years of Bond, I've began exploring back in to them, with the big boxset on my Christmas list. Seeing all this stuff coming up on the news and just seeing the hoopla around this instalment, a part of me just could not contain my excitement, even opting skipping my lecture today just to see the film as all later showings where sold out.

And while in the long run, it probably will prove to be the least wise of decisions. I was instantly back in the feeling of that wide eyed wonderment my child self would of felt seeing this pre-watershed hours over till late hours of the night.

For the first time in a long time, I felt like I was watching a Bond film.

It's got the vast gorgeous locations, the slick stylish characters and the actors reflecting them, a few of the gadgets, a lot of returning classic characters, the feel of threat, even a bit of goofiness and sly dry British wit was in there. The excitement was Bond on the screen before me, and even more exciting, it all felt fresh and new.

While the film harkened back to old tricks, it wasn't afraid to take risks. Bond traditions where respected but Bond conventions where broken. It's the first Bond film I think that also shows some of the politics behind the class and glam, and the film actually looks at how the series itself has moved with the time spawn. What if the people protecting us can't keep up with how fast technology is moving? Bond has come from a time where intel was placed in ink on paper within an envelope, to a time where intel isn't even a physical thing and is now easier to steal than ever. There's a good monologue in the film where M is explaining how threat has changed over time that wraps up what the film says expertly.

And I don't think I've been able to write about a deeper meaning in a Bond film ever.

Acting is very good, with Daniel Craig playing a now wiser, more observant Bond who is able to think quick on his feet, but is still wreckless and inpatient at times, and he has a good development through the film. Judi Dench is excellent as M once again, and Javier Bardem camps it up as the crazy euro-villain, adding to the vintage Bond feel, although there are odd moments where you're unsure as to him wanting to kill Bond or **** him.

And as it is 50 Years of Bond, they had to throw in a lot of nods to old Bond films, some subtle, some not so subtle, but nevertheless grin worthy when you see them.

As for problems with the film, well a few minor ones that can be over looked. The score is passible at best, there's an over use of CGI animals, Craig's stunt double is notable in a few shots, the influence of The Dark Knight is a bit too hard to overlook in sections of the film and some of the goof jokes and nods are a bit out of tone with other sections of the film.

But there's one thing thing I can't quite get out of my mind.

Towards the third act, the film takes one risk to far, and explores a part of Bond we've never seen before, and while it isn't a film breaker, the film begins to feel less and less like a Bond film and feels like a typical actioner. I think it's going to be a polarising move, splitting audiences in two as to if it works or not, I think it's an okay move, I just wished they did something a bit more interesting with it instead of the standard direction.

So for that, I rate it as a Bond film somewhere between an 8 and a 9.

But as a film on its own...

Well, it features a great, if a bit basic story, some spectacular action scenes and some great emotional wallop. I loved the film really, I just wished that near the end it did its thing far more radically or not at all.

9.5/10

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Skyfall

[Show spoiler]How important is James Bond to me?

Back when I was a young child, around 4 to the age of 8, ITV (TV channel to those who can't work it out) threw Bond marathons every year or two, showing a Bond film each Wednesday. Starting at 8 o'clock and ending sometime after 11 due to the awful mandatory splicing of the 10 o'clock news in the middle of films, I used to stay awake all night and watch them, or at least fell asleep during the news.

Needless to say, Bond is the single purpose I am here on this website now. It spawned my love of film and started my journey to learn about film and seek a job within the industry.

Yet I often forget that this is where I began, simply watching these often silly and dated spy films in my bed as a little child, with a Woody the Cowboy doll next to me, ready to watch the exploits of either Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. And yet so much of why I love films come from them, the way they capture the imagination, the espionage, the exotic location that seemed other worldly to my common English boy eyes, and even the goofiness.

So, with this being 50 years of Bond, I've began exploring back in to them, with the big boxset on my Christmas list. Seeing all this stuff coming up on the news and just seeing the hoopla around this instalment, a part of me just could not contain my excitement, even opting skipping my lecture today just to see the film as all later showings where sold out.

And while in the long run, it probably will prove to be the least wise of decisions. I was instantly back in the feeling of that wide eyed wonderment my child self would of felt seeing this pre-watershed hours over till late hours of the night.

For the first time in a long time, I felt like I was watching a Bond film.

It's got the vast gorgeous locations, the slick stylish characters and the actors reflecting them, a few of the gadgets, a lot of returning classic characters, the feel of threat, even a bit of goofiness and sly dry British wit was in there. The excitement was Bond on the screen before me, and even more exciting, it all felt fresh and new.

While the film harkened back to old tricks, it wasn't afraid to take risks. Bond traditions where respected but Bond conventions where broken. It's the first Bond film I think that also shows some of the politics behind the class and glam, and the film actually looks at how the series itself has moved with the time spawn. What if the people protecting us can't keep up with how fast technology is moving? Bond has come from a time where intel was placed in ink on paper within an envelope, to a time where intel isn't even a physical thing and is now easier to steal than ever. There's a good monologue in the film where M is explaining how threat has changed over time that wraps up what the film says expertly.

And I don't think I've been able to write about a deeper meaning in a Bond film ever.

Acting is very good, with Daniel Craig playing a now wiser, more observant Bond who is able to think quick on his feet, but is still wreckless and inpatient at times, and he has a good development through the film. Judi Dench is excellent as M once again, and Javier Bardem camps it up as the crazy euro-villain, adding to the vintage Bond feel, although there are odd moments where you're unsure as to him wanting to kill Bond or **** him.

And as it is 50 Years of Bond, they had to throw in a lot of nods to old Bond films, some subtle, some not so subtle, but nevertheless grin worthy when you see them.

As for problems with the film, well a few minor ones that can be over looked. The score is passible at best, there's an over use of CGI animals, Craig's stunt double is notable in a few shots, the influence of The Dark Knight is a bit too hard to overlook in sections of the film and some of the goof jokes and nods are a bit out of tone with other sections of the film.

But there's one thing thing I can't quite get out of my mind.

Towards the third act, the film takes one risk to far, and explores a part of Bond we've never seen before, and while it isn't a film breaker, the film begins to feel less and less like a Bond film and feels like a typical actioner. I think it's going to be a polarising move, splitting audiences in two as to if it works or not, I think it's an okay move, I just wished they did something a bit more interesting with it instead of the standard direction.

So for that, I rate it as a Bond film somewhere between an 8 and a 9.

But as a film on its own...

Well, it features a great, if a bit basic story, some spectacular action scenes and some great emotional wallop. I loved the film really, I just wished that near the end it did its thing far more radically or not at all.

9.5/10

What did you rate Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace?

[P@t_Mtl]

I have been hearing a lot of comments on how it's the best Bond ever. That being said, now a days everything "is the best ever" for the first three or four weeks something is out until everyone forget's about it and the next shinny little object is flash in front of their eyes and that then become the best ever

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What did you rate Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace?

Haven't seen them for a while, but Casino around an 8 and Quantum a 6 at most.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What did you rate Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace?

Be interested in seeing the answer to that as well. Thought Casino Royale was possibly the best Bond ever and an almost flawless production; Quantum had a couple of issues with me, particularly as regards some of the 'fast-cut' action sequences that were just too chopped up. Little concerned about the 'CGI animals' remarked upon if that's any indication of the production values employed. But lots more research to do...

Whoops! Just got the question answered, and it's positive! Thanks, Foggy...

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Skyfall

[Show spoiler]
How important is James Bond to me?

Back when I was a young child, around 4 to the age of 8, ITV (TV channel to those who can't work it out) threw Bond marathons every year or two, showing a Bond film each Wednesday. Starting at 8 o'clock and ending sometime after 11 due to the awful mandatory splicing of the 10 o'clock news in the middle of films, I used to stay awake all night and watch them, or at least fell asleep during the news.

Needless to say, Bond is the single purpose I am here on this website now. It spawned my love of film and started my journey to learn about film and seek a job within the industry.

Yet I often forget that this is where I began, simply watching these often silly and dated spy films in my bed as a little child, with a Woody the Cowboy doll next to me, ready to watch the exploits of either Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. And yet so much of why I love films come from them, the way they capture the imagination, the espionage, the exotic location that seemed other worldly to my common English boy eyes, and even the goofiness.

So, with this being 50 years of Bond, I've began exploring back in to them, with the big boxset on my Christmas list. Seeing all this stuff coming up on the news and just seeing the hoopla around this instalment, a part of me just could not contain my excitement, even opting skipping my lecture today just to see the film as all later showings where sold out.

And while in the long run, it probably will prove to be the least wise of decisions. I was instantly back in the feeling of that wide eyed wonderment my child self would of felt seeing this pre-watershed hours over till late hours of the night.

For the first time in a long time, I felt like I was watching a Bond film.

It's got the vast gorgeous locations, the slick stylish characters and the actors reflecting them, a few of the gadgets, a lot of returning classic characters, the feel of threat, even a bit of goofiness and sly dry British wit was in there. The excitement was Bond on the screen before me, and even more exciting, it all felt fresh and new.

While the film harkened back to old tricks, it wasn't afraid to take risks. Bond traditions where respected but Bond conventions where broken. It's the first Bond film I think that also shows some of the politics behind the class and glam, and the film actually looks at how the series itself has moved with the time spawn. What if the people protecting us can't keep up with how fast technology is moving? Bond has come from a time where intel was placed in ink on paper within an envelope, to a time where intel isn't even a physical thing and is now easier to steal than ever. There's a good monologue in the film where M is explaining how threat has changed over time that wraps up what the film says expertly.

And I don't think I've been able to write about a deeper meaning in a Bond film ever.

Acting is very good, with Daniel Craig playing a now wiser, more observant Bond who is able to think quick on his feet, but is still wreckless and inpatient at times, and he has a good development through the film. Judi Dench is excellent as M once again, and Javier Bardem camps it up as the crazy euro-villain, adding to the vintage Bond feel, although there are odd moments where you're unsure as to him wanting to kill Bond or **** him.

And as it is 50 Years of Bond, they had to throw in a lot of nods to old Bond films, some subtle, some not so subtle, but nevertheless grin worthy when you see them.

As for problems with the film, well a few minor ones that can be over looked. The score is passible at best, there's an over use of CGI animals, Craig's stunt double is notable in a few shots, the influence of The Dark Knight is a bit too hard to overlook in sections of the film and some of the goof jokes and nods are a bit out of tone with other sections of the film.

But there's one thing thing I can't quite get out of my mind.

Towards the third act, the film takes one risk to far, and explores a part of Bond we've never seen before, and while it isn't a film breaker, the film begins to feel less and less like a Bond film and feels like a typical actioner. I think it's going to be a polarising move, splitting audiences in two as to if it works or not, I think it's an okay move, I just wished they did something a bit more interesting with it instead of the standard direction.

So for that, I rate it as a Bond film somewhere between an 8 and a 9.

But as a film on its own...

Well, it features a great, if a bit basic story, some spectacular action scenes and some great emotional wallop. I loved the film really, I just wished that near the end it did its thing far more radically or not at all.

9.5/10

Originally Posted by Foggy

Haven't seen them for a while, but Casino around an 8 and Quantum a 6 at most.

Thanks for the review, dude. I have a good feeling about it (well, considering that the lowest I've ever rated an official Bond film is 3/5, it's a no-brainer for me). I especially like the sounds of it breaking conventions, while staying true to tradition (isn't that kinda what all of the Craig ones have been doing?).

Been avoiding the hype for a while (save for downloading the theme song and listening to it like a fiend), so chances are that I'll check it out next weekend, when the crowd dies a little, and I've had a chance to burn through more Bond films on Blu-Ray, and possibly dabble with more Bond video games.

[iam1bearcat]

wow. i never knew that about you Foggy, interesting stuff

me, however, i am no Bond fan. i've seen.... three Bond films at most. one with Brosnan, one with... someone... and Casino Royale.

it's never been something i've been interesting in same thing with the Mission Impossible series, just not a fan of that genre / film type.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I have been hearing a lot of comments on how it's the best Bond ever. That being said, now a days everything "is the best ever" for the first three or four weeks something is out until everyone forget's about it and the next shinny little object is flash in front of their eyes and that then become the best ever

Yeah, I don't think it's the best Bond ever (Comes behind Goldeneye and Goldfinger) but it defiantly top stuff

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Be interested in seeing the answer to that as well. Thought Casino Royale was possibly the best Bond ever and an almost flawless production; Quantum had a couple of issues with me, particularly as regards some of the 'fast-cut' action sequences that were just too chopped up. Little concerned about the 'CGI animals' remarked upon if that's any indication of the production values employed. But lots more research to do...

Whoops! Just got the question answered, and it's positive! Thanks, Foggy...

CGI animals were more distracting than anything, but a lot of the big action scenes were achieved with practical effects for the most part. And there is a greatly welcomed lack of shaky, fast cut action in the film.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thanks for the review, dude. I have a good feeling about it (well, considering that the lowest I've ever rated an official Bond film is 3/5, it's a no-brainer for me). I especially like the sounds of it breaking conventions, while staying true to tradition (isn't that kinda what all of the Craig ones have been doing?).

Been avoiding the hype for a while (save for downloading the theme song and listening to it like a fiend), so chances are that I'll check it out next weekend, when the crowd dies a little, and I've had a chance to burn through more Bond films on Blu-Ray, and possibly dabble with more Bond video games.

You'd love the film But I've heard the new Bond game is a pile of crap

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

wow. i never knew that about you Foggy, interesting stuff

me, however, i am no Bond fan. i've seen.... three Bond films at most. one with Brosnan, one with... someone... and Casino Royale.

it's never been something i've been interesting in same thing with the Mission Impossible series, just not a fan of that genre / film type.

You should give this one a shot then, since it attempts to be more than a typical Bond film

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Skyfall

[Show spoiler]How important is James Bond to me?

Back when I was a young child, around 4 to the age of 8, ITV (TV channel to those who can't work it out) threw Bond marathons every year or two, showing a Bond film each Wednesday. Starting at 8 o'clock and ending sometime after 11 due to the awful mandatory splicing of the 10 o'clock news in the middle of films, I used to stay awake all night and watch them, or at least fell asleep during the news.

Needless to say, Bond is the single purpose I am here on this website now. It spawned my love of film and started my journey to learn about film and seek a job within the industry.

Yet I often forget that this is where I began, simply watching these often silly and dated spy films in my bed as a little child, with a Woody the Cowboy doll next to me, ready to watch the exploits of either Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. And yet so much of why I love films come from them, the way they capture the imagination, the espionage, the exotic location that seemed other worldly to my common English boy eyes, and even the goofiness.

So, with this being 50 years of Bond, I've began exploring back in to them, with the big boxset on my Christmas list. Seeing all this stuff coming up on the news and just seeing the hoopla around this instalment, a part of me just could not contain my excitement, even opting skipping my lecture today just to see the film as all later showings where sold out.

And while in the long run, it probably will prove to be the least wise of decisions. I was instantly back in the feeling of that wide eyed wonderment my child self would of felt seeing this pre-watershed hours over till late hours of the night.

For the first time in a long time, I felt like I was watching a Bond film.

It's got the vast gorgeous locations, the slick stylish characters and the actors reflecting them, a few of the gadgets, a lot of returning classic characters, the feel of threat, even a bit of goofiness and sly dry British wit was in there. The excitement was Bond on the screen before me, and even more exciting, it all felt fresh and new.

While the film harkened back to old tricks, it wasn't afraid to take risks. Bond traditions where respected but Bond conventions where broken. It's the first Bond film I think that also shows some of the politics behind the class and glam, and the film actually looks at how the series itself has moved with the time spawn. What if the people protecting us can't keep up with how fast technology is moving? Bond has come from a time where intel was placed in ink on paper within an envelope, to a time where intel isn't even a physical thing and is now easier to steal than ever. There's a good monologue in the film where M is explaining how threat has changed over time that wraps up what the film says expertly.

And I don't think I've been able to write about a deeper meaning in a Bond film ever.

Acting is very good, with Daniel Craig playing a now wiser, more observant Bond who is able to think quick on his feet, but is still wreckless and inpatient at times, and he has a good development through the film. Judi Dench is excellent as M once again, and Javier Bardem camps it up as the crazy euro-villain, adding to the vintage Bond feel, although there are odd moments where you're unsure as to him wanting to kill Bond or **** him.

And as it is 50 Years of Bond, they had to throw in a lot of nods to old Bond films, some subtle, some not so subtle, but nevertheless grin worthy when you see them.

As for problems with the film, well a few minor ones that can be over looked. The score is passible at best, there's an over use of CGI animals, Craig's stunt double is notable in a few shots, the influence of The Dark Knight is a bit too hard to overlook in sections of the film and some of the goof jokes and nods are a bit out of tone with other sections of the film.

But there's one thing thing I can't quite get out of my mind.

Towards the third act, the film takes one risk to far, and explores a part of Bond we've never seen before, and while it isn't a film breaker, the film begins to feel less and less like a Bond film and feels like a typical actioner. I think it's going to be a polarising move, splitting audiences in two as to if it works or not, I think it's an okay move, I just wished they did something a bit more interesting with it instead of the standard direction.

So for that, I rate it as a Bond film somewhere between an 8 and a 9.

But as a film on its own...

Well, it features a great, if a bit basic story, some spectacular action scenes and some great emotional wallop. I loved the film really, I just wished that near the end it did its thing far more radically or not at all.

9.5/10

Glad to see that you loved it. Really looking forward to seeing it in the theater, especially since Casino Royale has managed to sneak into my Top 10 over the years.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Yeah, I don't think it's the best Bond ever (Comes behind Goldeneye and Goldfinger) but it defiantly top stuff

Trailer look's good and I am looking forward to seeing it. I am one of those old Bond fans who did not go nuts when Craig was pick and pretend that the franchise stop at Die Another Day Quantum was a bit disapointing but Casino Royal was pretty good.

[jvince]

Misery (1990)
dir. Rob Reiner

The Good: James Caan and Kathy Bates. The "hobbling" scene (I've known about that part way before I watched the entire film, but I still found it quite shocking). Love the dialogue, the suspense, and the dark humor. So many great lines. "I am your number one fan." "Eat it till you choke, you sick, twisted f*ck!"

The Bad: The epilogue.

The Bottom Line: Effective, claustrophobic, and tension-filled, Misery is recommended for fans of Stephen King and psychological horror-thrillers.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Skyfall

[Show spoiler]How important is James Bond to me?

Back when I was a young child, around 4 to the age of 8, ITV (TV channel to those who can't work it out) threw Bond marathons every year or two, showing a Bond film each Wednesday. Starting at 8 o'clock and ending sometime after 11 due to the awful mandatory splicing of the 10 o'clock news in the middle of films, I used to stay awake all night and watch them, or at least fell asleep during the news.

Needless to say, Bond is the single purpose I am here on this website now. It spawned my love of film and started my journey to learn about film and seek a job within the industry.

Yet I often forget that this is where I began, simply watching these often silly and dated spy films in my bed as a little child, with a Woody the Cowboy doll next to me, ready to watch the exploits of either Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. And yet so much of why I love films come from them, the way they capture the imagination, the espionage, the exotic location that seemed other worldly to my common English boy eyes, and even the goofiness.

So, with this being 50 years of Bond, I've began exploring back in to them, with the big boxset on my Christmas list. Seeing all this stuff coming up on the news and just seeing the hoopla around this instalment, a part of me just could not contain my excitement, even opting skipping my lecture today just to see the film as all later showings where sold out.

And while in the long run, it probably will prove to be the least wise of decisions. I was instantly back in the feeling of that wide eyed wonderment my child self would of felt seeing this pre-watershed hours over till late hours of the night.

For the first time in a long time, I felt like I was watching a Bond film.

It's got the vast gorgeous locations, the slick stylish characters and the actors reflecting them, a few of the gadgets, a lot of returning classic characters, the feel of threat, even a bit of goofiness and sly dry British wit was in there. The excitement was Bond on the screen before me, and even more exciting, it all felt fresh and new.

While the film harkened back to old tricks, it wasn't afraid to take risks. Bond traditions where respected but Bond conventions where broken. It's the first Bond film I think that also shows some of the politics behind the class and glam, and the film actually looks at how the series itself has moved with the time spawn. What if the people protecting us can't keep up with how fast technology is moving? Bond has come from a time where intel was placed in ink on paper within an envelope, to a time where intel isn't even a physical thing and is now easier to steal than ever. There's a good monologue in the film where M is explaining how threat has changed over time that wraps up what the film says expertly.

And I don't think I've been able to write about a deeper meaning in a Bond film ever.

Acting is very good, with Daniel Craig playing a now wiser, more observant Bond who is able to think quick on his feet, but is still wreckless and inpatient at times, and he has a good development through the film. Judi Dench is excellent as M once again, and Javier Bardem camps it up as the crazy euro-villain, adding to the vintage Bond feel, although there are odd moments where you're unsure as to him wanting to kill Bond or **** him.

And as it is 50 Years of Bond, they had to throw in a lot of nods to old Bond films, some subtle, some not so subtle, but nevertheless grin worthy when you see them.

As for problems with the film, well a few minor ones that can be over looked. The score is passible at best, there's an over use of CGI animals, Craig's stunt double is notable in a few shots, the influence of The Dark Knight is a bit too hard to overlook in sections of the film and some of the goof jokes and nods are a bit out of tone with other sections of the film.

But there's one thing thing I can't quite get out of my mind.

Towards the third act, the film takes one risk to far, and explores a part of Bond we've never seen before, and while it isn't a film breaker, the film begins to feel less and less like a Bond film and feels like a typical actioner. I think it's going to be a polarising move, splitting audiences in two as to if it works or not, I think it's an okay move, I just wished they did something a bit more interesting with it instead of the standard direction.

So for that, I rate it as a Bond film somewhere between an 8 and a 9.

But as a film on its own...

Well, it features a great, if a bit basic story, some spectacular action scenes and some great emotional wallop. I loved the film really, I just wished that near the end it did its thing far more radically or not at all.

9.5/10

Originally Posted by Foggy

Haven't seen them for a while, but Casino around an 8 and Quantum a 6 at most.

Better than Casino Royale, huh... I can't wait to see this.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

Better than Casino Royale, huh... I can't wait to see this.

But maybe you like Casino Royale better than Foggy. I would rate it close to what Foggy rated Skyfall, but even if it's only just as good as Casino Royale in my opinion, I'll be floored.

[Foggy]

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Wow!

First of, I saw a review on here a few months back, slating it for it's political outlook. As I've said before, I'm not particularly politically wise, and while I see some sort of political commentary as to how Bush handled the Hurricane Katrina incident in New Orleans, it's only used as a backdrop to a wider story about human nature.

And if you might know from reading some of my reviews, I love stories of kids being treated in a mature realistic light. And this is just one of those films that connected with me.

Beasts is the story of a little girl called Hushpuppy (played by the best 6 year old actress ever) who lives in the fictional world of The Bathtub, a small community riddled with poverty, with her dad. Hushpuppy has been forced to grow up from an early age so she can survive on her own once her father has gone, so she has a "take no shit" attitude, yet she looks at the world in a very whimsical place.

It's one of those cases where inexperienced eyes are able to see more than the experienced. She looks at things in a way only she could understand, like a refugee camp being described as "a fish bowl with no water".

The film has a great connection between the real and the fantasy, creating something that feels unique to the film and never been seen before. The sets are beautifully put together, cinematography is fantastic, if a little too shaky and handheld, stopping me from truly getting invested in the film.

The film features some funny moments as well as some truly heartbreaking parts. One of my fave lines of the year has to be "I hope you die and when you do, I'm going to go to you're grave and eat birthday cake"

And while the climax with the confrontation with the titular Beasts is a bit naff, the ending almost roped a few tears from me.

Loved it.

9.5/10

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

And there is a greatly welcomed lack of shaky, fast cut action in the film.

Good to hear.

[jvince]

Dawn of the Dead (2004)
dir. Zack Snyder

The Good: Gore. Tits. Fast zombies. Awesome kills. Opening sequence. Birth scene. CJ.

The Bad: Pacing is a little too fast (I have yet to see the unrated cut though). CGI looks pretty cheap now. Sarah Polley is kind of bad here (which is surprising considering her performances in films like The Sweet Hereafter and Go). Too much Snyder slo-mos and explosions.

The Bottom Line: Despite all of its flaws, Snyder's Dawn of the Dead compensates through its bountiful kinetic energy and proves it's a worthy (and superior) update of the original. Recommended.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

But maybe you like Casino Royale better than Foggy. I would rate it close to what Foggy rated Skyfall, but even if it's only just as good as Casino Royale in my opinion, I'll be floored.

I'd give it a 4/5 like Foggy. I haven't seen it in a while though.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Beasts of the Southern Wild

[Show spoiler]Wow!

First of, I saw a review on here a few months back, slating it for it's political outlook. As I've said before, I'm not particularly politically wise, and while I see some sort of political commentary as to how Bush handled the Hurricane Katrina incident in New Orleans, it's only used as a backdrop to a wider story about human nature.

And if you might know from reading some of my reviews, I love stories of kids being treated in a mature realistic light. And this is just one of those films that connected with me.

Beasts is the story of a little girl called Hushpuppy (played by the best 6 year old actress ever) who lives in the fictional world of The Bathtub, a small community riddled with poverty, with her dad. Hushpuppy has been forced to grow up from an early age so she can survive on her own once her father has gone, so she has a "take no shit" attitude, yet she looks at the world in a very whimsical place.

It's one of those cases where inexperienced eyes are able to see more than the experienced. She looks at things in a way only she could understand, like a refugee camp being described as "a fish bowl with no water".

The film has a great connection between the real and the fantasy, creating something that feels unique to the film and never been seen before. The sets are beautifully put together, cinematography is fantastic, if a little too shaky and handheld, stopping me from truly getting invested in the film.

The film features some funny moments as well as some truly heartbreaking parts. One of my fave lines of the year has to be "I hope you die and when you do, I'm going to go to you're grave and eat birthday cake"

And while the climax with the confrontation with the titular Beasts is a bit naff, the ending almost roped a few tears from me.

Loved it.

9.5/10

I really need to see this too. Is it similar to Pan's Labyrinth?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

I'd give it a 4/5 like Foggy. I haven't seen it in a while though.



I really need to see this too. Is it similar to Pan's Labyrinth?

Not really, it's a lot more grounded in reality but far more whimsical, where Pan's Labyrinth is gothic and gloomy. Beasts seems more like a fairytale where Pan's has more to do with fairytales.

And I haven't seen Casino Royale recently either, probably a year ago since I've seen it.

[legendarymatt92]

Much like another member on here, Foggy, the Bond franchise has played an important role in my life; being introduced to such an enigmatic and suave character at such a young age had a profound affect on my mind, and, much like the aforementioned Foggy, become the main reason for me wanting to become involved in the industry (not that I realised that at such a young age). No actor was my favourite, yet every film I watched was like a new burst of excitement - Bond, this personality, took over the screen, and I'd watch each and every film as many times as possible to absorb every little detail. It was an obsession, and I wanted to be, like so many other little boys, the character at the centre of this amazing universe -- when I grew up, I wanted to be James Bond.

Now, at the age of 20, I no longer want to be Bond -- although, if MI6 offered me a job that was similar, I might take it! -- but make a Bond film; I want to be responsible for making a film that joins such a brilliant franchise, that continues the character, that makes an impression on the die-hard fanbase at its centre...

...that's why, for me, Skyfall is the ultimate Bond film. I say to you now, without hesitation, that it is not the best film ever made -- it's not even the best Bond film ever made, in my opinion -- but it is so lovingly crafted, hard-worked and the most desperate homage to a culmination of films spanning 50 years that makes it the ultimate Bond flick -- it is the film that I would've wanted to make, had I been sat in the director's chair. From the opening blockbuster scene, very reminiscent of Casino Royale, to the end credits, it's an epic thrill-ride that has your complete and unflinching attention all the way through. It makes no mistakes: there are no scenes that linger for too long, there are no bad edits, there is nothing technically, thematically, directorially or narratively even remotely bad about the film, and it allows you the complete sense of wonderment and childish excitement that has been a given with every Bond released -- this is a world we all wish we could inhabit, no matter our age.

I could talk forever about how brilliant Skyfall really was, but there were four things that really stood out for me, and that I want to quickly mention. Number one is how caring and loving Mendes was towards previous instalments and how he homages them perfectly - each film has a moment dedicated to its rememberance but it's never glaring and right in your face, and neither is it hidden -- fans of the series will understand it, but non-fans won't notice that they've not understood something. Number two is how well they balanced the breath-taking action with the dry humour that Bond has become known for -- the correct moments have great emotion, whilst the others have terrific wit, but it never impedes onto scenes where it shouldn't. Number three is how well Javier Bardem played his character, and how well written that character actually was -- probably the campest villian that has ever graced a Bond film, the subtle nuances of his performance allow you a glimpse of a man, not consumed by revenge or hatred, like most villians, but who has simply lost his way, a man who can't distinguish between friend and foe, and who is alone in a world he doesn't understand. He deserves at least an award nomination for this performance, but definitely deserves to win. And the fourth is how well the balance between emotional Bond and action Bond was handled -- he was as bad-ass as ever in the scenes that called for it, yet Craig did superb in the scenes where Bond feels emotion. He isn't a super soldier, he's human, and that's where this film earns its salt, for want of a better phrase.

I know this isn't the best review ever, and it deserves to be for this film, but I just wanted to throw everything I could on here and see what stuck. There are occasional flaws - the questionable CGI work on one scene in particular, for instance - but these can be EASILY overlooked. I didn't even care about them because, tonally, it was classic Bond -- and that sentimental harking back to my childhood, coupled with a new persona of Bond, made this the most enjoyable trip to the cinema I think I've ever had. I absolutely loved it more than words can say.

10/10 (I wish I could give it more!)

[Foggy]

^^^ Great Review