The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jvince]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Very exciting list of Oscar noms this year.

Emmanuelle Riva was nominated for Best Actress.
Amour was nominated for best foreign film AND best picture.
Beasts of the Southern Wild for Best Picture, Director, AND Best Actress (first time director and 9 year-old actress).

Some unexpected snubs but very exciting year nonetheless.

2013 Oscar Nominees

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Holy smokes. I had no clue that she was the same woman/young lady from Hiroshima, mon amour. Talk about full circle in terms of themes.

I just looked at her IMDB page and the woman is 85 years old and has never stopped working since 1957. A gazillion films.

Yup, that was her. She was beautiful then and now. And damn, was she great in Amour. She deserves to win. Heck, Trintignant was also amazing, but he got snubbed in all the awards for some reason. Lawrence was also great, and Wallis and Chastain were alright, but I have a feeling they'll give it to either Chastain (to make up for Bigelow's exclusion) or Lawrence (because Silver Linings has suddenly become a frontrunner).

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched Gangster Squad earlier, simply put, it's a pretty pathetic film.

The trailer seemed underwhelming, but I was still a bit interested to see it because of the cast. Too bad it's really shit. I guess that means Fleischer is a crappy director (Zombieland would've been completely if it weren't for Bill Murray).

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Holy smokes. I had no clue that she was the same woman/young lady from Hiroshima, mon amour. Talk about full circle in terms of themes.

I just looked at her IMDB page and the woman is 85 years old and has never stopped working since 1957. A gazillion films.

It's pretty neat. I haven't seen all of the nominees but I sincerely hope she wins because her performance was remarkable. Another interesting thing... I thought Amour beared a strong resemblance to Bergman's Cries & Whispers. And beyond their likeness, it also features an aged (although younger) veteran actress, Harriet Andersson, and was also one of the only foreign films to be Oscar-nominated for Best Picture.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

Yup, that was her. She was beautiful then and now. And damn, was she great in Amour. She deserves to win. Heck, Trintignant was also amazing, but he got snubbed in all the awards for some reason. Lawrence was also great, and Wallis and Chastain were alright, but I have a feeling they'll give it to either Chastain (to make up for Bigelow's exclusion) or Lawrence (because Silver Linings has suddenly become a frontrunner).

That's true, I haven't seen his name anywhere. I thought it was particularly impressive how he depicted his character's evolution throughout the film.

[SquidPuppet]

Ted

Satisfactory.

There were actually a bunch of good laughs and they got a lot of it right. The opening story and narration were damn funny. The score was out of place, like from a 1950s goody-two-shoes film, and helped the sillyness factor. There were some surprising and hilarios cameos.

But there was some annoying stuff that they beat do death.

Good for some chuckles, but not an "own" for me.

Universal's "Rental" discs dont have bonus features and wont allow access to the "Unrated Cut".

Film 3/5
PQ 4.5/5
AQ 4.5

[Foggy]

I've watched 50 films from 2012 now (if you include the 3 that weren't released in the UK until earlier 2012 when they should of been 2011 releases).

The 50th one was

[Show spoiler]Les Misérables

if you we wondering.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Release this on Blu-ray for crying out loud. The run of Audrey Hepburn movies on Blu-ray ended pretty quickly, which is a shame. So many others that could be released, and this is one that should be a no-brainer.

Waiting for this one isn't helped by the fact that I haven't seen it.

A lot of people patiently waiting for this one! Gregory Peck! A stunning Audrey Hepburn! Rome! Clever writing! Happy to wait some more if they give this the full treatment it deserves...properly done it would be a gorgeous black and white release. Digibook please, as a companion to To Kill a Mockingbird (assuming Criterion can't get it, of course).

[dag]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I've watched 50 films from 2012 now (if you include the 3 that weren't released in the UK until earlier 2012 when they should of been 2011 releases).

I just counted, and I think I'm at 48 as of tonight (Zero Dark Thirty). Of course, there are different release schedules between our respective countries; I know there are some films I saw in 2011 (especially at our film festival) that weren't released until this past year, and maybe vice versa.

Good times!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by dag

I just counted, and I think I'm at 48 as of tonight (Zero Dark Thirty). Of course, there are different release schedules between our respective countries; I know there are some films I saw in 2011 (especially at our film festival) that weren't released until this past year, and maybe vice versa.

Good times!

I've still got Django, Cloud Atlas, Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln to come out over here (UK release dates suck really bad come December/Jamuary times) plus I've got to catch up with stuff Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, ParaNorman, Killer Joe and () Kieth Lemon: The Film.

I'm also going to try and catch a screening of Amour some time next week hopefully. I'm trying to check out all the best picture nominations for this year since I have interest in pretty much all of them (even in Life of Pi and Les Misérables), but Amour is probably the one I'm going to have most problems checking out.

[jvince]

The Last Stand (2013)
dir. Kim Jee-woon

The Good: Arnold. Johnny Knoxville. Luis Guzmán. The old lady. The town shootout. A few, funny one-liners. Pretty good at building tension.

The Bad: One-dimensional, moustache-twirling villains. Worn-out plot. Some bad acting (Noriega, Rodriguez) and miscasts (Whitaker). Cliches galore.

The Bottom Line: Don't go in expecting some high-quality entertainment in the mold of director Kim Jee-woon's pre-Hollywood films, such as I Saw the Devil, A Bittersweet Life, and The Good, the Bad, the Weird. The Last Stand is simply nothing but mindless, forgettable fun.

[Lepidopterous]

The Secret World of Arrietty

I have probably been looking forward to seeing this movie for over two years now and last night I finally got around to watching my blu-ray. Studio Ghibli releases are the only foreign films I am willing to watch dubbed in English, though I still prefer subbed. I viewed it in English since I was with family and enjoyed the voice acting overall, particularly of Arrietty and her parents. The score was fantastic. It sounded like an Irish-Japanese fusion of strings. Simple and beautiful.

The film seems relatively confined, but when given perspective, is actually pretty adventurous. A simple house becomes an enormous and dangerous place. Ants are more like mice, a crow's wings create a hurricane, and a human hand can cause an earthquake. We are endeared to the borrowers and so effectively brought to their level that I more often considered Shō a giant.

The animation quality and attention to detail is superb. It is fun to soak in the backgrounds and settings from scene to scene. When it got to the scene where they are admiring the level of detail in the dollhouse, I thought they were reciting my own thoughts from earlier about the film itself. And the creativity I have come to expect from Miyazaki's universe is there, from a flying squirrel borrower to a teapot traveling boat. Awesome cat? Check. Crazy old lady? Check. There is a great scene where Arrietty gets excited at the sight of a fish as if she had just seen a whale. It reminded me of the bus moment in My Neighbor Totoro. You can only get that kind of detail in a Miyazaki film (and the fact that the fish's eyes move is so Miyazaki). Also, scene where the cat approves of Arrietty looked frame-for-frame exactly like the beast encounter on Beasts of the Southern Wild.

In comparison to Miyazaki's other works, this film is more mature. There is little comic relief and Sho, the boy in the film, is older, quiet, and

[Show spoiler]has a serious heart condition. I realize that the point of Sho's illness is to create a child that is calm and patient enough to be gentle with the Borrowers, but

his character came off as off-putting to me.

[Show spoiler]I think they waited too long to reveal his condition, because I just thought he was weird and creepy until the middle of the film.

Perhaps I will grow more fond of his character in a second viewing.

The ending was a disappointment.

[Show spoiler]They invest in the idea of this dollhouse being a legacy in the family for the Borrowers, then they all just leave at the end. They build up this big operation Sho is having as his relationship grows with Arrietty, so we are led to believe that maybe something will come out of this friendship. Perhaps he will find companionship while he is recovering or dying. Instead, he is abandoned right before his operation.

The resolution was simply handled poorly.

Ultimately, it is not quite on par with the other extraordinary films in the Studio Ghibli collection, but it is a great film that excels above others in the genre. If it were not for the ending, it would probably rank right beside the others.

4/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

A lot of people patiently waiting for this one! Gregory Peck! A stunning Audrey Hepburn! Rome! Clever writing! Happy to wait some more if they give this the full treatment it deserves...properly done it would be a gorgeous black and white release. Digibook please, as a companion to To Kill a Mockingbird (assuming Criterion can't get it, of course).

+1. This needs a release and soon! Although I prefer the standard case.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

+1. This needs a release and soon! Although I prefer the standard case.

Actually, for this one I'd be happy with a business envelope...

[Abdrewes]

This is 40 (2012)

Viagra, Mortgage Payments, struggling entrepreneurs, electronics obsessed children, parental cyber-snooping: This is 40 addresses a gamut of mid-life issues with wavering success. Judd Apatow revolutionized comedy with The 40 Year Old Virgin and each subsequent film has had a notable drop in quality. I wouldn't categorize the film as an outright failure, but it sure is a large, at times welcoming, more frequently frustratingly lumbering dramedy. Although it features typically excellent performances and nice character moments, one has to lumber through countless lame gags to get there.

The lovely Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd play an over the hill couple with respective struggling businesses. In addition, they have two kids and a myriad of familial conflicts to navigate through including issues with their parents and a nondescript love life. However un-involving each narrative strand is, the cast conveys warmth and comfort remarkably. The two children are excellent, regardless of what the lackadaisical script requires them to do. What*we learn along the long winding road, though well intentioned and earnest, requires plot devices and contrivances. Which wouldn't be so bad if the film didn't feel like a collection of outtakes from a better film.

In short, Judd Apatow isn't as funny anymore. I smiled or silently chuckled numerous times out of sympathy for the characters and care for their plight. More often than jokes would falter on arrival. Amidst all the problems, I still want continue to see his films because of the firm grasp he with performers and in writing somewhat layered characters. Much like the central couple, this very well may be the turning point in his career. He's lost his edge, but that's not entirely a bad thing. The best of This is 40 proves this.

5.5/10


Anna Karenina (2012)

Joe Wright, best known for his adaptations of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement, returns with his most Brechtian and divisive film yet. As opposed to setting the film amongst natural settings, the decision was made to punctuate the innate theatricality with several scenes on a stage. These scenes are actually fascinating and wondrously shot, more than earning it's multiple Oscar nominations. The production design is first rate and floods one's retina with memorable compositions.*

It's obvious that technique takes center stage, maybe it always has for Joe Wright. Virtuosic camera movement and Meticulous choreography anchor each one of his films. The single most impressive shot (albeit superfluous to the narrative) of 2011 belonged to Hanna: the intricately staged Eric Bana subway fight.*However, I wouldn't dismiss Wright as a Burtonesque, non-wholistic type filmmaker. A fair sense of narrative and cogency is still at work. Each ravishing movement builds to the inevitable railway climax

Kiera Knightley delivers her finest performance as the titular Anna. She aptly conveys a woman consumed by hubris and the quandary that arises from pursuing an affair with Count Vronsky. Aaron Johnson plays the aforementioned Count with varied success. Someone like a younger Jude Law (whom plays Anna's Husband) would have nailed the role ten years ago. But instead we are left with a non-charismatic romantic interest. Initially this works in tandem with the *staginess, but as the narrative progresses he's not charming, enigmatic, or engaging enough to warrant our interest. It's a fair performance, but brings down the film in a similar way that the male lead did in My Week With Marilyn.

7.5/10


Just Saw Zero Dark Thirty. A Total Masterpiece and best film of the year.

Top 20 of 2012 (out of 75)
1) Zero Dark Thirty
2) The Master
3) Cloud Atlas
4) Argo
5) Django Unchained
6) The Secret World of Arrietty
7) Skyfall
8) Searching for Sugar Man
9) Miss Bala
10) We Need To Talk about Kevin
11) The Grey
12) Life of Pi
13) Lincoln
14) Samsara
15) Cabin in the Woods
16) Prometheus
17) Beasts of the Southern Wild
18) Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
19) The Avengers
20) Safety Not Guaranteed

[Pondosinatra]

Director: Peter Jackson

Main Stars: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett

Rating: 2 out of 5

When I first heard they were going to turn The Lord Of The Rings into a set of movies I rolled my eyes. These books along with The Hobbit were highly cherished by me growing up. There was no way a movie would even compare. But when they came out Jackson won me over and I loved them. So when I heard he was doing the same to The Hobbit I had a similar reaction. This time unfortunately, he lost his way. I saw the film in regular 2D as I didn't want the raging debate over the technology used in the 3D version to be a distraction. I also went in not having watched any trailers, or read anything about it as I didn't want to be biased in any way. First the good - I thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo. I also found the 'Riddle In the Dark' scene where Bilbo first meets Gollum and discovers the ring to be top notch. Easily the best part of the movie. Now the bad - I knew going in that this was going to be the first part of a trilogy. With the other two movies essentially being 'made up' by Jackson based on literally a few appendix notes Tolkien had made. So there were obvious parts that weren't in the book but thrown in to tie into the upcoming films. While I get it, I found it to be annoying. I was also worried about the tone of the movie. The Hobbit is after all a children's book. While there was some attempt to lighten the mood which succeeded in parts it also resulted in things constantly flipping back and forth from comedic to serious. It didn't work for me. Worse, the special effects reflected that disparity. In one scene we have the one Goblin bad guy looking all evil and menacing, and then in the next scene we have the other Goblin bad guy looking like something out of Labyrinth being puppeted by Jim Henson. It was a bizarre clash of styles. Then when the credits rolled I was extremely pissed off I just spent three hours watching only to get part way through what in reality is a short novel. They easily could have started things where it ended and covered everything else in a short pre-amble. Highly disappointing.

[jvince]

Reservoir Dogs (1992)
dir. Quentin Tarantino

The Good: Magnificent ensemble; Possibly among the coolest casts ever assembled (It's amazing how Tarantino managed to get all these guys early in his career). Top-notch character work. Exceptional, snappy dialogue. That iconic scene where Michael Madsen (who turns in an electric, scene-stealing performance as the deranged psychopath, Mr. Blonde) dances to "Stuck in the Middle with You" while torturing a cop. Great replay value.

The Bad: Goes a little overboard with the cussing that it becomes ridiculous at times.

The Bottom Line: Not only is Reservoir Dogs now a modern cinematic landmark, it has also become a huge influence and inspiration for aspiring independent filmmakers. Highly recommended.

[Foggy]

Meh, I think you overrate it a bit

[Steve46]

Summer with Monika (1953)
Drama, Romance, 98 minutes, Swedish Language
Directed by Ingmar Bergman
Starring Harriet Andersson, Lars Ekborg and Dagmar Ebbesen



One of the things I love most about Blu-ray is that films from the 50s and earlier can be brought back to life. Summer with Monika is a Criterion release, so you know that it looks as good as it can. For a 60-year-old film, the results are most pleasing.

The story is about human relationships, and how our perspectives alter as we mature. Harry is 19 when he's approached by Monika in a cafe. She's very forward and asks him if he'll take her to the cinema. After he agrees, the two decide that they need to be together. The title suggests that the relationship might not last forever, but stop reading now if you want to avoid further spoilers.

Both have boring jobs, and Harry soon follows Monika's lead after she quits. She seeks refuge with him, claiming that her drunken father is abusive, and Harry does his best to provide for her. In order to have privacy, he takes her to his father's boat and they sleep there. This is the start of an adventure in the style of a road movie, but this one involves a boat. The two sail to secluded areas and live with a certain amount of freedom. The main problem is their lack of money, but they are not above stealing in order to survive. It's like an ancient cross between Something Wild, Pierrot le fou, and Grave of the Fireflies, but nobody's life is in danger.

Things follow their natural course, with Monika eventually revealing that she is pregnant. It's here that Harry realizes that his idyllic life will soon have to end, and that the couple will need to be more responsible if they are to raise a child, but Monika hates the thought of returning to her old life. When she accepts the inevitable, their lives change. Harry's life starts to feel like Henry Spencer's existence in Eraserhead, as he is forced to find time to study, work, support his family, and take care of his baby. Monika doesn't seem ready to be a mother at all and wants her life to go back to the way it was.

One interesting sequence shows the differing outlooks of teenagers and middle-aged people. The younger couple feel that they have to rebel and escape a traditional life in order to be happy, but one of the older characters embraces the feel of the city after being away for a few days.

Bergman uses the industrial smoke and natural mist to enhance the dreamlike quality of their romance, and reinforces it by having his two characters smoke cigarettes throughout the film. This is a fairly straightforward look at young romance, and shows how society viewed people who had children before they were married. If you want to see how Stockholm looked in the 50s, this is like an historical document.

Summer with Monika won't drastically alter your perspective on life, but it's a well-told romance with plenty of realism. Fans of the film, or Bergman, should definitely invest in the Criterion Blu-ray.

Overall score 3.5/5

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Director: Peter Jackson

Main Stars: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett

Rating: 2 out of 5

When I first heard they were going to turn The Lord Of The Rings into a set of movies I rolled my eyes. These books along with The Hobbit were highly cherished by me growing up. There was no way a movie would even compare. But when they came out Jackson won me over and I loved them. So when I heard he was doing the same to The Hobbit I had a similar reaction. This time unfortunately, he lost his way. I saw the film in regular 2D as I didn't want the raging debate over the technology used in the 3D version to be a distraction. I also went in not having watched any trailers, or read anything about it as I didn't want to be biased in any way. First the good - I thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo. I also found the 'Riddle In the Dark' scene where Bilbo first meets Gollum and discovers the ring to be top notch. Easily the best part of the movie. Now the bad - I knew going in that this was going to be the first part of a trilogy. With the other two movies essentially being 'made up' by Jackson based on literally a few appendix notes Tolkien had made. So there were obvious parts that weren't in the book but thrown in to tie into the upcoming films. While I get it, I found it to be annoying. I was also worried about the tone of the movie. The Hobbit is after all a children's book. While there was some attempt to lighten the mood which succeeded in parts it also resulted in things constantly flipping back and forth from comedic to serious. It didn't work for me. Worse, the special effects reflected that disparity. In one scene we have the one Goblin bad guy looking all evil and menacing, and then in the next scene we have the other Goblin bad guy looking like something out of Labyrinth being puppeted by Jim Henson. It was a bizarre clash of styles. Then when the credits rolled I was extremely pissed off I just spent three hours watching only to get part way through what in reality is a short novel. They easily could have started things where it ended and covered everything else in a short pre-amble. Highly disappointing.

Very similar to my review. It's a shame it isn't going to be done well.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

The Secret World of Arrietty

I have probably been looking forward to seeing this movie for over two years now and last night I finally got around to watching my blu-ray. Studio Ghibli releases are the only foreign films I am willing to watch dubbed in English, though I still prefer subbed. I viewed it in English since I was with family and enjoyed the voice acting overall, particularly of Arrietty and her parents. The score was fantastic. It sounded like an Irish-Japanese fusion of strings. Simple and beautiful.

The film seems relatively confined, but when given perspective, is actually pretty adventurous. A simple house becomes an enormous and dangerous place. Ants are more like mice, a crow's wings create a hurricane, and a human hand can cause an earthquake. We are endeared to the borrowers and so effectively brought to their level that I more often considered Shō a giant.

The animation quality and attention to detail is superb. It is fun to soak in the backgrounds and settings from scene to scene. When it got to the scene where they are admiring the level of detail in the dollhouse, I thought they were reciting my own thoughts from earlier about the film itself. And the creativity I have come to expect from Miyazaki's universe is there, from a flying squirrel borrower to a teapot traveling boat. Awesome cat? Check. Crazy old lady? Check. There is a great scene where Arrietty gets excited at the sight of a fish as if she had just seen a whale. It reminded me of the bus moment in My Neighbor Totoro. You can only get that kind of detail in a Miyazaki film (and the fact that the fish's eyes move is so Miyazaki). Also, scene where the cat approves of Arrietty looked frame-for-frame exactly like the beast encounter on Beasts of the Southern Wild.

In comparison to Miyazaki's other works, this film is more mature. There is little comic relief and Sho, the boy in the film, is older, quiet, and

[Show spoiler]has a serious heart condition. I realize that the point of Sho's illness is to create a child that is calm and patient enough to be gentle with the Borrowers, but

his character came off as off-putting to me.

[Show spoiler]I think they waited too long to reveal his condition, because I just thought he was weird and creepy until the middle of the film.

Perhaps I will grow more fond of his character in a second viewing.

The ending was a disappointment.

[Show spoiler]They invest in the idea of this dollhouse being a legacy in the family for the Borrowers, then they all just leave at the end. They build up this big operation Sho is having as his relationship grows with Arrietty, so we are led to believe that maybe something will come out of this friendship. Perhaps he will find companionship while he is recovering or dying. Instead, he is abandoned right before his operation.

The resolution was simply handled poorly.

Ultimately, it is not quite on par with the other extraordinary films in the Studio Ghibli collection, but it is a great film that excels above others in the genre. If it were not for the ending, it would probably rank right beside the others.

4/5

I gave it 4.5, but we agree on a lot of things. I watch it often.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Director: Peter Jackson

Main Stars: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett

Rating: 2 out of 5

When I first heard they were going to turn The Lord Of The Rings into a set of movies I rolled my eyes. These books along with The Hobbit were highly cherished by me growing up. There was no way a movie would even compare. But when they came out Jackson won me over and I loved them. So when I heard he was doing the same to The Hobbit I had a similar reaction. This time unfortunately, he lost his way. I saw the film in regular 2D as I didn't want the raging debate over the technology used in the 3D version to be a distraction. I also went in not having watched any trailers, or read anything about it as I didn't want to be biased in any way. First the good - I thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo. I also found the 'Riddle In the Dark' scene where Bilbo first meets Gollum and discovers the ring to be top notch. Easily the best part of the movie. Now the bad - I knew going in that this was going to be the first part of a trilogy. With the other two movies essentially being 'made up' by Jackson based on literally a few appendix notes Tolkien had made. So there were obvious parts that weren't in the book but thrown in to tie into the upcoming films. While I get it, I found it to be annoying. I was also worried about the tone of the movie. The Hobbit is after all a children's book. While there was some attempt to lighten the mood which succeeded in parts it also resulted in things constantly flipping back and forth from comedic to serious. It didn't work for me. Worse, the special effects reflected that disparity. In one scene we have the one Goblin bad guy looking all evil and menacing, and then in the next scene we have the other Goblin bad guy looking like something out of Labyrinth being puppeted by Jim Henson. It was a bizarre clash of styles. Then when the credits rolled I was extremely pissed off I just spent three hours watching only to get part way through what in reality is a short novel. They easily could have started things where it ended and covered everything else in a short pre-amble. Highly disappointing.

I enjoyed the Hobbit, but it is definitely nothing compared to its predecessors and I had issues with it from tone shifts, to style, etc. as well.

I'll buy it and watch the next two parts, but I'm not for Part II.

I think their original plan of two films would have been the best option personally.