The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Enjoyable but overrated IMO.

I loved Hushpuppy's story, but man, what a bunch of unlikable characters.

Rather depressing watching all the alcoholics neglect and abuse their children.

Didnt have the uplifting punch I was hoping for at the end.

Camera work was average. Editing was choppy and clunky in spots.

3/5

[Foggy]

Regarding Looper: I guess Rian Johnson just isn't for you How far into the film did you get?

Regarding Beasts: My memory is a bit fuzzy on the film, since it was a bit of an off the cuff cinema viewing. But I don't remember any child abuse, I remember it being a case and point that the kids were pretty much being toughened up for the world, and there was a detachment from Hushpuppy and her father, but that's all I've got.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Regarding Looper: I guess Rian Johnson just isn't for you How far into the film did you get?

Regarding Beasts: My memory is a bit fuzzy on the film, since it was a bit of an off the cuff cinema viewing. But I don't remember any child abuse, I remember it being a case and point that the kids were pretty much being toughened up for the world, and there was a detachment from Hushpuppy and her father, but that's all I've got.

I got almost an hour into Looper. I guess the "Style" of the film just wasnt working for me.

Regarding Beasts of the Southern Wild. The following comments have nothing to do with being poor. Being poor is no excuse for what the adults in the film were doing.

1. Hushpuppy's Dad allowed her to live in utter germ infested filth. They had gas and electricity. Give her a bath and wash her damn clothes. No excuses acceptable.
2. Hushpuppy's Dad would disappear (abandon her) for days on end, leaving her to eat dog food and survive in a dangerous place.
3. Hushpuppy's Dad frequently motivated her through intimidation. Does that make her tougher? Maybe, but its a horrible thing to do to a child. It confuses a child when their sole protector/provider is also a source of fear. Thats emotional and psychological abuse.
4. Hushpuppy'd Dad (a muscular adult male) strikes a small female child in the face. Hard enough to send her across the room. Thats physical abuse.
5. Hushpuppy's Dad threatens her with more of number 4. Again, emotional and psychological abuse.
6. Hushpuppy's Dad had money for booze, all day, everyday, but Hushpuppy never had vegetables or a glass of milk.
7. Hushpuppy's Dad encouraged her to drink booze repeatedly.
8. We never saw Hushpuppy's Dad teach her to read or write or do math. Public school is free. See to it that she gets what she needs.

Hushpuppy's Dad was a typical alcoholic parent, regardless of income bracket or social status. Selfish, intimidating, neglectful of her real needs, and abusive. So was almost all of that whole clan in The Bathtub.

The film was just a lot darker than I anticipated. I anticipated a movie about a poor (no money) family struggling to survive, told through the eyes of a small child. What I got was a movie about a small childs stuggle to survive in the face of almost insurmountable odds. One of the greatest being her Dad.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Enjoyable but overrated IMO.

I loved Hushpuppy's story, but man, what a bunch of unlikable characters.

Rather depressing watching all the alcoholics neglect and abuse their children.

Didnt have the uplifting punch I was hoping for at the end.

Camera work was average. Editing was choppy and clunky in spots.

3/5

I thought the camera work was really good. They often kept the camera low to the ground at the 6-year-old's level and framed many scenes beautifully. Particularly when

[Show spoiler]she interacts with the beasts and the close-ups during the scene when she loses her dad

. The dynamic shots at the beginning also stick out to me.

At first, the dad was very unlikable to me. Feeding her the same chicken as the dogs and pushing her away. But it becomes evident later that he is trying to be hard on her so she can handle the world on her own one day. When it was apparent that he cares for her, I became more involved in their father-daughter relationship. The scene where

[Show spoiler]hushpuppy first lays her head on him is where the movie takes an emotional turn.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I got almost an hour into Looper. I guess the "Style" of the film just wasnt working for me.

Regarding Beasts of the Southern Wild. The following comments have nothing to do with being poor. Being poor is no excuse for what the adults in the film were doing.

1. Hushpuppy's Dad allowed her to live in utter germ infested filth. They had gas and electricity. Give her a bath and wash her damn clothes. No excuses acceptable.
2. Hushpuppy's Dad would disappear (abandon her) for days on end, leaving her to eat dog food and survive in a dangerous place.
3. Hushpuppy's Dad frequently motivated her through intimidation. Does that make her tougher? Maybe, but its a horrible thing to do to a child. It confuses a child when their sole protector/provider is also a source of fear. Thats emotional and psychological abuse.
4. Hushpuppy'd Dad (a muscular adult male) strikes a small female child in the face. Hard enough to send her across the room. Thats physical abuse.
5. Hushpuppy's Dad threatens her with more of number 4. Again, emotional and psychological abuse.
6. Hushpuppy's Dad had money for booze, all day, everyday, but Hushpuppy never had vegetables or a glass of milk.
7. Hushpuppy's Dad encouraged her to drink booze repeatedly.
8. We never saw Hushpuppy's Dad teach her to read or write or do math. Public school is free. See to it that she gets what she needs.

Hushpuppy's Dad was a typical alcoholic parent, regardless of income bracket or social status. Selfish, intimidating, neglectful of her real needs, and abusive. So was almost all of that whole clan in The Bathtub.

The film was just a lot darker than I anticipated. I anticipated a movie about a poor (no money) family struggling to survive, told through the eyes of a small child. What I got was a movie about a small childs stuggle to survive in the face of almost insurmountable odds. One of the greatest being her Dad.

So you didn't get up to the stuff about The Rainmaker in Looper, I was a bit interested to see how you took to that, judging by how dark it is/gets.

As for Beasts, sounds like you've made a pretty convincing argument there. The stuff about public school never entered my mind (mainly because of the fantasy povertish setting). I'll have to watch it again when it comes out, I remember the father being very harsh in parts (although not as harsh as you said) but it was balanced out with parts where the Dad showed genuine care for her, and I remember caring quite a bit when the father

[Show spoiler]entered the hospital

.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I thought the camera work was really good. They often kept the camera low to the ground at the 6-year-old's level and framed many scenes beautifully. Particularly when

[Show spoiler]she interacts with the beasts and the close-ups during the scene when she loses her dad

. The dynamic shots at the beginning also stick out to me.

You are right about those particular shots. Also the closeup of her crying was quite pretty. Great little actress.

At first, the dad was very unlikable to me. Feeding her the same chicken as the dogs and pushing her away. But it becomes evident later that he is trying to be hard on her so she can handle the world on her own one day. When it was apparent that he cares for her, I became more involved in their father-daughter relationship. The scene where

[Show spoiler]hushpuppy first lays her head on him is where the movie takes an emotional turn.

All I saw was an angry, self centered, selfish, abusive, lazy, drunken piece of sh!t who used "I'm making you tough" as an excuse for being a worthless father. He only "cared" when it fit in between getting drunk and nursing a hangover. When he learned that he

[Show spoiler]was dying

he attempted to teach her how to catch a fish. What about the other six years of her life?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Looper

I love time travel, really like the cast, and it got great reviews, so I assumed I would enjoy it.

Could not finish it.

I couldnt appreciate the story. Hell, I couldnt even pay attention to the story because of the Faux Noir dialogue. Truly horrible. 90% of the lines made me cringe. Worst writing I have witnessed in many years.

The action and violence were way too cartoony for my tastes.

Very at all the praise for this film.

2/5

It wasn't as good as I expected but I found it pretty cool in a random and clever sort of way. The ending definitely escalates things.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

So you didn't get up to the stuff about The Rainmaker in Looper, I was a bit interested to see how you took to that, judging by how dark it is/gets.

I got to the beginning of that. With the dude that was

[Show spoiler]falling apart. and the whole realization about the other dude being him.

Besides the dialogue, there was something else that I cant quite put my finger on, but it rubbed me the wrong way. Definitely a style thing though, because the concept was really cool.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

Enchanted (2007)
dir. Kevin Lima

[Show spoiler]

The Good: Amy Adams. The original songs composed by Alan Menken (Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid) -- "True Love's Kiss," "Happy Working Song," and the film's centerpiece, "That's How You Know" -- all top-notch. Witty dialogue.

The Bad: Crappy CGI. The final battle is poorly thought out.

The Bottom Line: Enchanted isn't perfect, but it's an inspired homage and satire of classic Disney fairy tales that, for some reason, never ceases to amuse and entertain.

I love that movie. Blind bought it about a year and a half ago and wasn't disappointed in the slightest.

I couldn't imagine anyone but Amy Adams playing Giselle.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Looper

I love time travel, really like the cast, and it got great reviews, so I assumed I would enjoy it.

Could not finish it.

I couldnt appreciate the story. Hell, I couldnt even pay attention to the story because of the Faux Noir dialogue. Truly horrible. 90% of the lines made me cringe. Worst writing I have witnessed in many years.

The action and violence were way too cartoony for my tastes.

Very at all the praise for this film.

2/5

One questionid you like Drive then?I felt those two movies had very simmilar style.Thought Looper was ok,but dissliked Drive after about 20 minutes.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

One questionid you like Drive then?I felt those two movies had very simmilar style.Thought Looper was ok,but dissliked Drive after about 20 minutes.

Interesting. I was OK with Drive. Maybe I liked it for how little dialogue it had.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Interesting. I was OK with Drive. Maybe I liked it for how little dialogue it had.

lol.Guess costumedrama is not for you then.And:no!adult movies does not constitute costumedrama

[Steve46]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Adventure, Fantasy, 169 minutes
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving

After the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I hoped and expected that director Peter Jackson would stick to the same format for The Hobbit. In some ways he does, but the feel isn't exactly the same.

What I like about this first installment of Tolkien's first trip to Middle Earth is that the same sets are used for Hobbiton, and many of the actors return. It was also a good idea to reprise some of the music used in the previous trilogy. When I saw the familiar setting and heard the music, I was already partly won over by the movie. Unfortunately, my opinion had changed long before it finally ended.

So why do I have mixed feelings?

The first major problem was the decision to make this much shorter story into a trilogy. Many of the scenes felt overly long, and did not serve much purpose. I didn't have a watch or a phone with me, but it seemed as if we spent around an hour in Bilbo's house before the quest even began.

The Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo's first adventure. After a visit from Gandalf (Ian McKellen), dwarves start showing up at his house unannounced. This unwelcome interruption of his routine is disturbing to Bilbo (Martin Freeman), as he learns that Gandalf has persuaded the dwarves that Bilbo should join their quest to retrieve their stolen gold from the dragon, Smaug. This part of the story shows the initial stages of that journey.

I'm not really sure what The Hobbit wanted to be, or what the intended audience was. Like the books, some of the scenes involve characters breaking into song on a few occasions. I found this to be annoying rather than charming, but I am sure that some will be happy that songs were included. One of the flaws with the generally excellent previous trilogy was the use of humor. Well, The Hobbit turns that element up several notches, and most of it is incredibly stupid. The first clue was a belching scene at dinner in Bilbo's house, but the humor was relentless. The most out of place example was when one of the major villains died and had to deliver a one-liner as he expired. For me, this had the effect of completely removing any tension or drama. It was like watching a Roger Moore Bond movie set in Middle Earth.

The choice of Freeman as Bilbo seemed odd to me, but I must admit that he did a decent job. A few of his lines were actually funny.

I'm sorry to belabor the point, but the use of humor seemed to contradict the overall feel of the movie. Half of the speeches were too epic in tone to be taken seriously. I didn't know whether I was watching a Shakespearean production, a spoof, or an action movie. One of the people sitting behind me felt compelled to laugh at almost every line of dialogue, so the jokes obviously worked for somebody. My idea of humor would be to have Hugo Weaving saying "Mister Oakenshield" in his best Agent Smith voice, so it's probably a good thing that I didn't write the screenplay.

It's a shame that The Hobbit doesn't seem to be up to the same standard set by Lord of the Rings. The movie's opening has been incredibly successful, and my theater was still sold out two weeks after it was released. I have to wonder how many patrons will return for the remainder of the trilogy.

The setting is beautiful, and some of the actors return, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to give The Hobbit a passing grade. If you want to hang out in Middle Earth, watch some great special effects, and admire some enormously detailed sets, you might enjoy the movie. If you care about the books, or the characters, you may be sorely disappointed. I saw the film four hours ago and can only put faces to the names of four of the dwarves. They were thinly-drawn at best.

This release might just persuade me to skip the other two installments in theaters. I'll borrow the Blu-rays and see if the story improves.

Overall score 3/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I got almost an hour into Looper. I guess the "Style" of the film just wasnt working for me.

Regarding Beasts of the Southern Wild. The following comments have nothing to do with being poor. Being poor is no excuse for what the adults in the film were doing.

[Show spoiler]
1. Hushpuppy's Dad allowed her to live in utter germ infested filth. They had gas and electricity. Give her a bath and wash her damn clothes. No excuses acceptable.
2. Hushpuppy's Dad would disappear (abandon her) for days on end, leaving her to eat dog food and survive in a dangerous place.
3. Hushpuppy's Dad frequently motivated her through intimidation. Does that make her tougher? Maybe, but its a horrible thing to do to a child. It confuses a child when their sole protector/provider is also a source of fear. Thats emotional and psychological abuse.
4. Hushpuppy'd Dad (a muscular adult male) strikes a small female child in the face. Hard enough to send her across the room. Thats physical abuse.
5. Hushpuppy's Dad threatens her with more of number 4. Again, emotional and psychological abuse.
6. Hushpuppy's Dad had money for booze, all day, everyday, but Hushpuppy never had vegetables or a glass of milk.
7. Hushpuppy's Dad encouraged her to drink booze repeatedly.
8. We never saw Hushpuppy's Dad teach her to read or write or do math. Public school is free. See to it that she gets what she needs.

Hushpuppy's Dad was a typical alcoholic parent, regardless of income bracket or social status. Selfish, intimidating, neglectful of her real needs, and abusive. So was almost all of that whole clan in The Bathtub.

The film was just a lot darker than I anticipated. I anticipated a movie about a poor (no money) family struggling to survive, told through the eyes of a small child. What I got was a movie about a small childs stuggle to survive in the face of almost insurmountable odds. One of the greatest being her Dad

.

I think you're getting caught up on how bad of a father the dad and it's obscuring the rest of the film. It's still about Hushpuppy and he's still her dad. Her mom left them and he's all she's got. He didn't even let her cry because that's the only way he knew how to survive (emotion = weakness). Whether it shows enough humanity in him for you to eventually empathize with him is irrelevant to how much their relationship means to Hushpuppy. And I think his nature added to the realism and mercilessness of the film. My heart didn't break for him but for the girl.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Adventure, Fantasy, 169 minutes
Directed by Peter Jackson

[Show spoiler]
Starring Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving

After the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I hoped and expected that director Peter Jackson would stick to the same format for The Hobbit. In some ways he does, but the feel isn't exactly the same.

What I like about this first installment of Tolkien's first trip to Middle Earth is that the same sets are used for Hobbiton, and many of the actors return. It was also a good idea to reprise some of the music used in the previous trilogy. When I saw the familiar setting and heard the music, I was already partly won over by the movie. Unfortunately, my opinion had changed long before it finally ended.

So why do I have mixed feelings?

The first major problem was the decision to make this much shorter story into a trilogy. Many of the scenes felt overly long, and did not serve much purpose. I didn't have a watch or a phone with me, but it seemed as if we spent around an hour in Bilbo's house before the quest even began.

The Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo's first adventure. After a visit from Gandalf (Ian McKellen), dwarves start showing up at his house unannounced. This unwelcome interruption of his routine is disturbing to Bilbo (Martin Freeman), as he learns that Gandalf has persuaded the dwarves that Bilbo should join their quest to retrieve their stolen gold from the dragon, Smaug. This part of the story shows the initial stages of that journey.

I'm not really sure what The Hobbit wanted to be, or what the intended audience was. Like the books, some of the scenes involve characters breaking into song on a few occasions. I found this to be annoying rather than charming, but I am sure that some will be happy that songs were included. One of the flaws with the generally excellent previous trilogy was the use of humor. Well, The Hobbit turns that element up several notches, and most of it is incredibly stupid. The first clue was a belching scene at dinner in Bilbo's house, but the humor was relentless. The most out of place example was when one of the major villains died and had to deliver a one-liner as he expired. For me, this had the effect of completely removing any tension or drama. It was like watching a Roger Moore Bond movie set in Middle Earth.

The choice of Freeman as Bilbo seemed odd to me, but I must admit that he did a decent job. A few of his lines were actually funny.

I'm sorry to belabor the point, but the use of humor seemed to contradict the overall feel of the movie. Half of the speeches were too epic in tone to be taken seriously. I didn't know whether I was watching a Shakespearean production, a spoof, or an action movie. One of the people sitting behind me felt compelled to laugh at almost every line of dialogue, so the jokes obviously worked for somebody. My idea of humor would be to have Hugo Weaving saying "Mister Oakenshield" in his best Agent Smith voice, so it's probably a good thing that I didn't write the screenplay.

It's a shame that The Hobbit doesn't seem to be up to the same standard set by Lord of the Rings. The movie's opening has been incredibly successful, and my theater was still sold out two weeks after it was released. I have to wonder how many patrons will return for the remainder of the trilogy.

The setting is beautiful, and some of the actors return, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to give The Hobbit a passing grade. If you want to hang out in Middle Earth, watch some great special effects, and admire some enormously detailed sets, you might enjoy the movie. If you care about the books, or the characters, you may be sorely disappointed. I saw the film four hours ago and can only put faces to the names of four of the dwarves. They were thinly-drawn at best.

This release might just persuade me to skip the other two installments in theaters. I'll borrow the Blu-rays and see if the story improves.

Overall score 3/5

I had a similar gripe about how briefly they displayed Rivendell, but then realized the book only briefly touched on it as well. Same goes for the 13 dwarves. Most are not given much attention in the book. And their goofy appearances add to the fact that The Hobbit was written as a children's novel.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think you're getting caught up on how bad of a father the dad and it's obscuring the rest of the film.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What I got was a movie about a small childs stuggle to survive in the face of almost insurmountable odds. One of the greatest being her Dad.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I My heart didn't break for him but for the girl.

Same here.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Not at all.

Same here.

Ah I see. Just tried to shed some more light on it. Sorry it didn't work for ya.

[P@t_Mtl]

Finding Nemo (2003)

Directed by : ew Stanton
Starring : Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould
Format : Blu-ray

Story : On the Great Barrier Reef, a clown fish name Marlin (Brooks) is a single dad raising his son Nemo. Because of a tragic event in the past Marlin as a serious issue letting go of the string on Nemo and letting his son grow up. One day in defiance to his dad who is afraid of everything Nemo swin into the open ocean and his captured by scuba divers. Marlin tries to follow but lose sight of the boat. Meeting a good natured regal blue tang with memory problems name Dori. The two of them team up and try to make their way to Sydney and face many adventures. Mean time Nemo is in a fish tank in a dentist office where he become's friend with a group of fish. The leader name Gill prepare a escape with the help of the new arrival. The adventures of his dad reach Nemo who cannot believe that his dad is doing all these things. They are reunited in Sydney harbor where one last adventure is awaiting them and where Marlin also learn the important lesson of letting go and trust.

Comments : Hard to believe it's been 10 years already for this one. It was Pixar's biggest box office hit until 2010 when Toy Story 3 went past it. The story is probably one of the strongest made by Pixar. It also blew away everyone with the sea enviroment which was probably the most difficult Pixar ever done even to this day. Sure the graphic do get better as the year's go by and each new movie seem to surplant the previous one. However what make's Finding Nemo special is the story and character, it wasn't all about the graphics.

Ratings : 4/5

[budious]

Clash of the Warlords (1985)

Clash of the Warlords is the sequel to the equally provocative W is War in the Filipino Apocalyptic Z-Movie category. What you get in this type of movie? Without giving too much away...

[Show spoiler]battle trikes and light sabers

... you get an insane hodge podge of comedic elements ducted taped together as sloppily as the props complete with broken grammar English dub providing the backbone of the laughs. There is irrelevant backstory but seeing the first entry in the series is not necessary, this simply picks up as simple revenge yarn, where protagonist meets antagonist in The Arena while aluminum-foil clad cronies keep guard and spectate the proceedings. Yadda yadda yadda my daddy this, your daddy that, but the cheese is thick and the mockery set for full throttle. This is a perfect entry for the do-it-yourself Mystery Science Theater screening you were planning this weekend.

Highly Recommended.

Screencaps:

[Show spoiler]

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I got to the beginning of that. With the dude that was

[Show spoiler]falling apart. and the whole realization about the other dude being him.

Besides the dialogue, there was something else that I cant quite put my finger on, but it rubbed me the wrong way. Definitely a style thing though, because the concept was really cool.

So you didn't get up to Bruce Willis

[Show spoiler]shooting 6 year olds