The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[legendarymatt92]

Based on the novella Paranoia in the Laundrette by Bruce Robinson (director of Withnail & I) and marking the directorial debut of Crispian Mills, an English guitarist for a psychedelic indie rock band, something a little out-of-the-ordinary is bound to be expected...

The Good Points: Great unhinged performance from the ever-reliable Simon Pegg. Interesting premise and good, if not a little off-hand, characterisation for the lead character. Fantastically surreal visuals, especially in the cut-away sequences found throughout. Very fluid and professional cinematography, which raises the film above its low-budget sensibilities. Extremely likeable.

The Bad Points: Frequently too quirky and weird for its own good; often feels forced with little reason behind it. Moments of horribly expositional dialogue (or monologue) that really drags you out of the experience. Uneven narrative with various unexplained jumps in location and some plot holes. Doesn't balance the comedy, horror and drama well at all, and feels off at times. Slightly amateur-ish in places.

It's a passable and entertaining (or should that be endearing?) attempt at the black-comedy genre, but A Fantastic Fear of Everything just can't transcend the multiple homages and influences at its heart to become anything more than mediocre -- but gains points for Pegg's impressive performance and the surreal world it boldly portrays.

6/10

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Agree with both reviews, I enjoyed Trance but only as a one time thing, it's stylish and loose, but the film as a whole is just a bit of a mess.

Place Beyond The Pines is worth watching just for the amount of film you get. But my major problem is that weak third act, forgetting that it's rather contrived (which isn't such a big problem) it feels a little more unbalanced and misguided in which way it was going, while the second act felt like a different film and story with loose connections to the first act, the third feels like it's trying to repeat but instead tries to resolve both narratives satisfyingly as well and it just becomes overwhelming. But it's never bad, just disappointing considering the very very very strong first two acts.

[Show spoiler]I felt that the third act helps expand the film a little bit. I loved how it showed that the actions of their fathers have dire consequences for their sons. And more importantly, it showed that the flawed father's attributes carry on to their own kids. And call me crazy, but I absolutely loved the second act. I thought Cooper's interaction with the corruption of the police department to be absolutely nerve wracking. One of the best shots of the film is when Liotta pulled Cooper over and you can see his eye hovering down and looking at him. Sent chills down my spine.

[Al_The_Strange]

Speaking of which...

The Place Beyond the Pines

I didn’t really grasp the full extent of what to expect when I went into this film. Initially, it was the opening act, with Ryan Gosling on a motorbike robbing banks, that appealed to me the most. I half-expected this film to play out like Drive or something. I would come to find that The Place Beyond the Pines is not exactly an action-packed film; there’s really only a few major chases. The majority of this film is built on delicately-developed characters and their inevitable collisions.

This film is laid out in three distinct acts. The first third of the film is what appealed to me the most, showing a poor man resorting to crime to support a family that constantly eludes him. Then the film switches to the story of a cop who confronts this criminal. The final section concludes with the legacy left behind from these two characters. The whole film is successful at building emotional, believable characters that we can appreciate and relate to. Its triple-layered narrative is interesting, but loses steam by the finale, and is ultimately anticlimactic. Overall, the story is interesting and mostly well-structured, offering an interesting and heartfelt portrayal of corruption on both sides of the law, and how it affects family lives.

This film uses some very rough and shakey photography. The action scenes tend to be overly-erratic, but the rest of the film is pretty well-framed. Editing is not bad. This film uses some very gently-nuanced performances, and all of the actors are all quite effective. This production uses some real-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is especially moody.

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

Recommendation: It's worth seeing at least once.

-----

Holy crap, I went to the theaters to see a drama! No splosions or anything. What's the world coming to?!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Speaking of which...

The Place Beyond the Pines

[Show spoiler] I didn’t really grasp the full extent of what to expect when I went into this film. Initially, it was the opening act, with Ryan Gosling on a motorbike robbing banks, that appealed to me the most. I half-expected this film to play out like Drive or something. I would come to find that The Place Beyond the Pines is not exactly an action-packed film; there’s really only a few major chases. The majority of this film is built on delicately-developed characters and their inevitable collisions.

This film is laid out in three distinct acts. The first third of the film is what appealed to me the most, showing a poor man resorting to crime to support a family that constantly eludes him. Then the film switches to the story of a cop who confronts this criminal. The final section concludes with the legacy left behind from these two characters. The whole film is successful at building emotional, believable characters that we can appreciate and relate to. Its triple-layered narrative is interesting, but loses steam by the finale, and is ultimately anticlimactic. Overall, the story is interesting and mostly well-structured, offering an interesting and heartfelt portrayal of corruption on both sides of the law, and how it affects family lives.


This film uses some very rough and shakey photography. The action scenes tend to be overly-erratic, but the rest of the film is pretty well-framed. Editing is not bad. This film uses some very gently-nuanced performances, and all of the actors are all quite effective. This production uses some real-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is especially moody.

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

Recommendation: It's worth seeing at least once.

-----

Holy crap, I went to the theaters to see a drama! No splosions or anything. What's the world coming to?!

I love your reviews, Al, so I'll probably check this out -- I was worried it would be a cheap Drive knock-off with some deeper-than-expected themes, like you, but it doesn't sound much like that at all.

[Abdrewes]

Holy crap, I went to the theaters to see a drama! No splosions or anything. What's the world coming to?!

You're on the right path, my friend

[jhiggy23]

The Kid With a Bike:

3 (out of 4)


A solid entry into the Criterion Collection, even if not a classic. The Dardennes brothers oftentimes make simple films just like this that really rely on characters. I actually liked the fact that Cecile de France's character isn't given much in the way of a backstory, a fact that others have bemoaned. Recommended.

_________________________________________________

The Boxer:

3.5 (out of 4)

Considered the weakest of the Day-Lewis/Sheridan collaborations, but only because the others are My Left Foot and In the Name of the Father. Once again Day-Lewis is great. What makes the film, however, is the subtle but tender nature of the romance in the film. I agree with Ebert that that's the film's biggest strength and that the boxing scenes are a bit superfluous.

__________________________________________________ __

The Circus:

4 (out of 4)

Loved it. This was the last of the Chaplin Tramp movies for me to see and I thought it was great. I still think The Gold Rush is Chaplin's best and funniest film, with City Lights following closely behind. I think The Circus is his second funniest film though.

__________________________________________________ _________

The Great Dictator:

3 (out of 4)

My first non-Tramp Chaplin. I thought it was pretty good, but not particularly funny. The globe gag is good, though. I'm in the minority in that I actually love the concluding monologue. Ebert hated it, saying it didn't work then and doesn't work now. The vast majority of other critics also hate it. I like it, however, because up until that point the film had been light hearted even though it was a biting criticism of Hitler. By ending the film with an eloquent monologue about the horror of war and the need for peace, I thought it brought out the point of the film in a necessary way. Was it obvious and did it greatly change the tone of the film? Of course. But I think it works.

__________________________________________________ _

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen:

3 (out of 4)

An enjoyable but light-hearted fare. Ewan Macgregor had a very good 2012. He was nominated, rightly so, for a Golden Globe for his role, and in many other years he would have scored an Oscar nom for his performance in the Impossible. Emily Blunt is also great and is a real star. Her ability to establish chemistry with male leads is certainly a talent, but it's her likeability and ability to convey non-verbal emotion that I think makes her someone to watch. The premise of the film is ridiculous and the love story isn't developed enough, but everyone is just so likeable that it's hard not to enjoy the film.


__________________________________________________ __________

War Horse:

3 (out of 4)

Lesser Spielberg for sure. I thought it was a pretty good film with great visuals but it just didn't have the "it" factor that most Spielberg's have. The war scenes were toned down by Spielberg to make it more family friendly due to the stage show, but I think that lessened the impact of the film. The ending is also a bit too neat.

[vader4]

42

In 42 a great subject for an original baseball film is wasted to create what is essentially a trite rehash of everything else you've seen before. The film follows baseball legend Jackie Robinson through the early days of his career. To be honest I'm not a baseball guy or a sports guy in general, but even I know that the film's look at Robinson is a very narrow and rather it opts to make the same basic "underdog becomes sports player" movie. The film does find some memorable performances, however, in Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie, and Chadwick Boseman in the titular role. Overall I'd give it a 6/10, it's entertaining, but don't go expecting any more then the same old same old which is ok if that's what you're looking for.

A little note on my reviews-
You may think I seem to beat up on movies that I give ok scores to, but that isn't my intention. I use words with primarily negative connotations, but I think this is actually a bit better because when I really think you should see a movie you will know.

My Grading Scale
10= Exceptional, there are a few of these each year as I'm not stingy about giving my top score.
8-9= Great
6-7= Ok, but disappointing
1-5= Varying levels of not good

[Al_The_Strange]

This one was on TV, so I let it play for a while. My opinion for it hasn't changed since I last saw it.

Man on Fire

You would think this movie would be something awesome and badass. The film tries its hardest to be. The main character does march around, cause some carnage, kills and tortures some people in cold blood, all for the sake of rescuing a little girl.

The film is successfully awesome for many viewers, but not for me personally. What action and violence is here is very brief and strangely unremarkable. The biggest standout to this film is its style, which is annoying beyond belief. The frame flashes and throbs incessantly. Cuts are quick. Camera moves range from being perfectly steady to being erratic as hell. Combined with a super-hot color scheme, constant NIN riffs (oddly contrasted with occasional Lisa Gerrard music), and some free-floating subtitles, the film just assaults the eyes for no good effect. Considering this film runs for two-and-a-half hours, with maybe ten minutes of actual action and a whole hour of character building, the film proves to be long and tedious.

The story for this is as basic as it can get. With the first hour devoted to building up the main character and his relationship with the little girl he's charged to protect, the film tries its best to add depth and emotion. Plus, the film does tackle the pressing issue of kidnappings in Mexico. However, I never really felt fully engaged with the characters or the particulars of the plot. Maybe the film's style gets in the way, but ultimately, I never felt this film was all that deep. If anything, half of this film could have been cut, and it still would have worked the way it does now.

As described above, the film uses a lot of flashy and erratic camera movements and editing effects. Acting is generally not bad. Writing is okay. This production does have slick-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Music is pretty cool, even if it does constantly repeat the same NIN tune over and over again.

I'm personally baffled as to the praise and acclaim this film continues to get. For a revenge film, there's little vengeance involved. What remains is covered in a gaudy veneer of excessive visual noise and distraction. I might have liked it better with a more toned-down style, but even then, I would have liked it best if it was tighter or meatier.

3/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Average | Film: Poor)

Recommendation: Since this film does have a following, I'd say it's worth seeing at least once.

[vader4]

Mullholand Drive

Holy S**t. There's definitely a reason why I keep seeing this on lists. The performances are fantastic, the cinematography is impressive, and the film itself is entrancing. I learned after that it was originally supposed to be a television series which leads me to understand my one complaint which is that a few characters seem underdeveloped, but the film as a whole is so great that it sort of takes a backseat. This is going to be a bit of a sucky review because I don't know what else to say. Watch it if you haven't seen it! 10/10 + 10 x 10

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

*sniffles* The good old days...

I forgot I still had that saved.

[jvince]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
dir. Robert Zemeckis

The Good: Groundbreaking marriage of live action and traditional animation. Disney-Looney Tunes crossover. PG neo-noir (We need more PG neo-noirs!). Perfect pacing. High replay value. Jessica Rabbit.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: A technical marvel unlike any other, Who Framed Roger Rabbit remains an animated masterpiece and a landmark in cinematic history. Essential viewing.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I forgot I still had that saved.

I think I need to save it too.

I don't think I have my old one(s) you made for me anymore either since this isn't the same laptop I had then.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by vader4

Mullholand Drive

Holy S**t. There's definitely a reason why I keep seeing this on lists. The performances are fantastic, the cinematography is impressive, and the film itself is entrancing. I learned after that it was originally supposed to be a television series which leads me to understand my one complaint which is that a few characters seem underdeveloped, but the film as a whole is so great that it sort of takes a backseat. This is going to be a bit of a sucky review because I don't know what else to say. Watch it if you haven't seen it! 10/10 + 10 x 10

Amen! Answer me this: which part do you rhink is reality and which is not? (Use spoilers)

[Abdrewes]

Al, I will agree that Man on Fire is a very thin film, and easily the weakest of Scott's late films. What do you think of his other works? I love his overblown style (although, the flashy subs and echoed lines do grate in MoF). Anyways, I highly recommend this essay in defense of Tony Scott:


http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/smear...action-painter

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Al, I will agree that Man on Fire is a very thin film, and easily the weakest of Scott's late films. What do you think of his other works? I love his overblown style (although, the flashy subs and echoed lines do grate in MoF). Anyways, I highly recommend this essay in defense of Tony Scott:


http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/smear...action-painter

I honestly think that Man on Fire is one of Scott's best films, from any period in his career. IMO, he's never been as painterly in his direction as in that film (and I've seen The Hunger )

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I honestly think that Man on Fire is one of Scott's best films, from any period in his career. IMO, he's never been as painterly in his direction as in that film (and I've seen The Hunger )

Yay, a Tony Scott conversation.

What about Domino? It's more extreme than Man on Fire in every way. Didn't David Edelsyein call it the "end of the world" or something to that effect.

I think Deja Vu is his masterpiece though. It's only sevond to True Romance in triggering an emotional reaction in me.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Yay, a Tony Scott conversation.

What about Domino? It's more extreme than Man on Fire in every way. Didn't David Edelsyein call it the "end of the world" or something to that effect.

I think Deja Vu is his masterpiece though. It's only sevond to True Romance in triggering an emotional reaction in me.

I never particularly cared for it, to be honest. I felt there was too much plotting and it was hard to track, but it was entertaining nonetheless.

True Romance is incredible, and Scott's direction really transcends what's there in the -- for me -- pretty bland, Tarantino-penned script. I honestly think that Scott was the best choice to helm that project; the tough, loud, brass dialogue and chance for some incredible imagery really played to his strengths.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I never particularly cared for it, to be honest. I felt there was too much plotting and it was hard to track, but it was entertaining nonetheless.

True Romance is incredible, and Scott's direction really transcends what's there in the -- for me -- pretty bland, Tarantino-penned script. I honestly think that Scott was the best choice to helm that project; the tough, loud, brass dialogue and chance for some incredible imagery really played to his strengths.

I didn't find Domino hard to follow but then again, I'm not one to care for plot holes (which I'm sure there are many).

So you don't find True Romance endearing? It's essentially a big wish fulfillment fantasy. That and Everything else gets to me: the romance, the colors, the comedy. That was the film I wanted to pop in immediately after hearing of his death.

[vader4]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Amen! Answer me this: which part do you rhink is reality and which is not? (Use spoilers)

[Show spoiler]I think it's "Diane and Camilla" that's the reality and the "Betty and Rita" is a dream. Finding the body in the dream seems like a reflection of Diane's dark reality and also it seems that Diane took the young attractive waitress's name because she envys her. Although I think one of the great things about this movie is that anyone's interpretation can be correct and still have the movie retain it's meaning. Which do you think is the reality?

I always think the sign of a truly great movie is it's ability to stick with you long after the credits have finished rolling and this is a fine example of that. It was hard to think about anything else today. I can see why it's on your top movies, it's likely to be pretty high up on mine!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I didn't find Domino hard to follow but then again, I'm not one to care for plot holes (which I'm sure there are many).

So you don't find True Romance endearing? It's essentially a big wish fulfillment fantasy. That and Everything else gets to me: the romance, the colors, the comedy. That was the film I wanted to pop in immediately after hearing of his death.

I just thought Domino was overly-convoluted, and never really finds its point, but maybe that's just me. I don't care too much for plot holes, either -- unless they're the most obvious things in the world and completely ruin the experience, I can overlook them.

Oh, it's very endearing. I agree with your assessment of it; it's brilliant and that's mostly because of Scott's direction. I think the script Tarantino had written was uninspired and monotonous compared to his others, and it was the visual (and painterly, once more) aspect that Scott brought to it that really helped transcend the story from that written material.