The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

No.Maybe I should get a DVD of it and check it out...Guess that's what you are saying

Have you seen The Elephant Man? That film was made in a traditional way, not all weird like Lynch's other stuff. And I have to say that it is absolutely brilliant. Five and a half stars.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

[

[Show spoiler]CENTER]

Sin City (2005)
dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino[/CENTER]

The Good: Visually arresting; There's nothing quite like it.

The Bad: Pretty much everything else -- Dull stories, unengaging characters, cringeworthy dialogue, plot holes galore, and contrived as hell.

[Show spoiler]The Bottom Line: All style, no substance. At least it looks great.

You forgot to mention overloaded with gratuitous grotesqueness.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

[Show spoiler]

Sin City (2005)
dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino

The Good: Visually arresting; There's nothing quite like it.

The Bad: Pretty much everything else -- Dull stories, unengaging characters, cringeworthy dialogue, plot holes galore, and contrived as hell.

The Bottom Line: All style, no substance. At least it looks great.

I would have thought the same way at first, but for whatever reason, I kept coming back to it. Especially when they released the recut version, where you can watch all the stories on their own.

That version on DVD came with one of the graphic novels. Man, it looked as though 99.9% of the movie is the EXACT same as the novel. Same visual looks, same dialogue, same everything. So for all the bad comments you've listed, I wonder if it's more Frank Miller's fault than Robert Rodriguez's.

After seeing it a few times, it's now a personal favorite. I've always liked Marv's segment, but I learned to enjoy the other stories and characters too.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[/SPOILER]

You forgot to mention overloaded with gratuitous grotesqueness.

That might have been one of the things that put me off on the first viewing. Nowadays, I'd put that in the "The Good" section.

[Al_The_Strange]

GI Joe: Retaliation

In 2009, GI Joe hit the big screen with Rise of the Cobra. It would come to be loathed by both established fans and common viewers, seeing it as an overloaded, cartoony mess of a movie with absolutely no good justice done to the GI Joe franchise. I personally always knew this movie was bad, but it came to be one of my top guilty pleasures, thanks to its fantastically explosive and ambitious action sequences, its high-speed pacing, and overall lightheartedness, which makes it every bit as fun and endearing of an adventure as Stephen Sommers' other films.

Now, like any other sequel, this new GI Joe film is released with the promise of making things "better." Jon Chau sets out to make GI Joe far less cartoony, far darker, and much more like an actual action movie, rather than whatever the heck Rise of the Cobra was. Retaliation still has some cool hardware; some of the most inventive scenes include an awesome morphing motorcycle, robotic fireflies, and a boat with tank treads. Some of the funnest action scenes include a high-flying pursuit along ziplines on a mountain, complete with ninjas, plus plenty of gunfights, swordfights, and explosive vehicular mayhem.

This may all sound like great stuff for action fans. The problem is, the action is spaced out a lot more than in the first film, so the pacing suffers. Plus, most of the action is strangely drab and uninspired; the gunfights throughout the first half play out with little ambition or distinction, looking no different than any other action or war movie on the market. The real magic of GI Joe, with all the gizmos and cool fights, didn't sink in until the last half.

Even with the action spread out, the story doesn't really take the time to breathe. It's strangely choppy; plot points are slapped together without any transition or sense of passage, so the logos of the whole thing is royally screwed up. Characters continue to make stupid decisions, and stupid events continue to take place (especially in the film's finale, which despite its ambition might be one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while). Characterization is mostly absent, and actually felt stronger in the first film. Overall, this is not the film to see if you want a quality story, much less one that makes sense or has actual depth or feeling.

This film is made with adequate photography and editing; there are plenty of cool-looking shots, but most fights are shot really close and with some erratic shaking, making it a little annoying to watch half of the time. Acting from the main cast is pretty bland, and I was especially mortified by the RZA's acting in his cameo appearance. Writing is awful, with really stupid dialogue and terrible plotting. The best that can be said is that this production uses okay-looking sets, props, costumes, and Henry Jackman's score is awesome at times.

GI Joe: Retaliation has its exciting parts, but it's brought down tremendously by its lackluster characters, its hole-ridden plot, and mediocre execution. I'd even go so far as to say that it lacks the ambition of Rise of the Cobra; I'll always go back to that first film, even with its own set of horrid issues, just to experience the awesome Paris car chase, the sub-glacial submarine battle, and every other awesome thing Stephen Sommers could come up with. By comparison, Jon Chau's film is far less fun, even when it tries to hard to be cool.

If I'd recommend this to anybody, it would probably be to younger PG-13 crowd, who would go to this for the action rather than the story anyway. Diehard franchise fans will probably dig it too. Most everybody else will probably find it disgusting.

3/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Marginal | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: Not for anybody old enough to think.

By comparison, I gave Rise of the Cobra a 4/5 back in the day. I know I shouldn't have, but, uhhh...

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I would have thought the same way at first, but for whatever reason, I kept coming back to it. Especially when they released the recut version, where you can watch all the stories on their own.

That version on DVD came with one of the graphic novels. Man, it looked as though 99.9% of the movie is the EXACT same as the novel. Same visual looks, same dialogue, same everything. So for all the bad comments you've listed, I wonder if it's more Frank Miller's fault than Robert Rodriguez's.

After seeing it a few times, it's now a personal favorite. I've always liked Marv's segment, but I learned to enjoy the other stories and characters too.

I agree with most of this; it's crass and not-so-subtle, but it's entertaining and visually exquisite. However, I don't blame Frank Miller or Rodriguez for the problems -- I think it's just the fact that a lot of what makes the graphic novel great gets lost in the translation to film.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Have you seen The Elephant Man? That film was made in a traditional way, not all weird like Lynch's other stuff. And I have to say that it is absolutely brilliant. Five and a half stars.

Have it on BD.To make it clear:I love Eraserhead,Blue velvet,Wild at heart and the Straight story.Think Elephant man is very good (was there ever a more touching scene when they chase him into a corner,and the ending is just poetic).Gave up on him after Lost highway-maybe it's me,but that movie I thought was strange for strangeness sake.

Will give Mulholland drive a chance,but think I'll have to get into the right frame of mind.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Have it on BD.To make it clear:I love Eraserhead,Blue velvet,Wild at heart and the Straight story.Think Elephant man is very good (was there ever a more touching scene when they chase him into a corner,and the ending is just poetic).Gave up on him after Lost highway-maybe it's me,but that movie I thought was strange for strangeness sake.

Will give Mulholland drive a chance,but think I'll have to get into the right frame of mind.

If you managed to get through Eraserhead and love it, you really should have no major problem with Mulholland Drive -- the latter may be more dream-like and confusing, but it's not as much of a head-f*ck as the former.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I agree with most of this; it's crass and not-so-subtle, but it's entertaining and visually exquisite. However, I don't blame Frank Miller or Rodriguez for the problems -- I think it's just the fact that a lot of what makes the graphic novel great gets lost in the translation to film.

Good point.

[Lepidopterous]

I think Sin City stands only second to The Dark Knight as the best American comic book adaptation ever made. Where the source material gave comics a breath of fresh air, the adaptation gave the film medium an equally potent refresher in style and atmosphere. Even TDK is more of a real-world drama than the extraordinary comic book/pop feel that films like Sin City and 300 bring to the table. It is a vision so closely tied to its graphic novel counterpart that I can confidently say that most of its criticism is really against the comics, of which I am a huge fan in the first place. Superb film.

[Lopan]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think Sin City stands only second to The Dark Knight as the best American comic book adaptation ever made. Where the source material gave comics a breath of fresh air, the adaptation gave the film medium an equally potent refresher in style and atmosphere. Even TDK is more of a real-world drama than the extraordinary comic book/pop feel that films like Sin City and 300 bring to the table. It is a vision so closely tied to its graphic novel counterpart that I can confidently say that most of its criticism is really against the comics, of which I am a huge fan in the first place. Superb film.

Don't forget about Watchmen, it was really identical to the comic too. In tone and visually.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Lopan

Don't forget about Watchmen, it was really identical to the comic too. In tone and visually.

Thanks, yes it deserves a mention. I do have my criticisms for Watchmen--overused slow-mo and lacking the philosophical depth of the graphic novel (which is part of the reason it was deemed unfilmable from the get-go)--but it is quite an impressive feat nonetheless. I actually liked the ending change too. It worked better for the film. One of my favorite soundtrack compilations from any film of recent years as well.

Sin City still leads the pack imo, but Snyder's films closely follow. I may be too harsh on Watchmen, because although it is the only one that struggled to reach the same heights as the graphic novel, it also had the highest expectations.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think Sin City stands only second to The Dark Knight as the best American comic book adaptation ever made. Where the source material gave comics a breath of fresh air, the adaptation gave the film medium an equally potent refresher in style and atmosphere. Even TDK is more of a real-world drama than the extraordinary comic book/pop feel that films like Sin City and 300 bring to the table. It is a vision so closely tied to its graphic novel counterpart that I can confidently say that most of its criticism is really against the comics, of which I am a huge fan in the first place. Superb film.

That would be A History of Violence, my friend

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

That would be A History of Violence, my friend

Maria Bello pulled a Sofia Coppola. Her acting brought the film down for me.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Maria Bello pulled a Sofia Coppola. Her acting brought the film down for me.

For real? Ugh...

I plan on revisiting it very soon (maybe tomorrow).

My own better than (The Dark Knight) list:
1) A History of Violence
2) Ghost World
3) Persepolis
4) American Splendor
5) Spider-Man II
6) Superman The Movie
7) Road to Perdition
8) Hellboy II

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

For real? Ugh...

I plan on revisiting it very soon (maybe tomorrow).

My own better than (The Dark Knight) list:
1) A History of Violence
2) Ghost World
3) Persepolis
4) American Splendor
5) Spider-Man II
6) Superman The Movie
7) Road to Perdition
8) Hellboy II

Sorry bud. I like the film though and proud to own it. Bolded are the ones that would probably make my top ten, though Persepolis is French. Need to see Spidey II and Hellboy II again. I absolutely love the latter but I have only seen it once. Pure thrill ride, creative, and definitely better than the first.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Sorry bud. I like the film though and proud to own it. Bolded are the ones that would probably make my top ten, though Persepolis is French. Need to see Spidey II and Hellboy II again. I absolutely love the latter but I have only seen it once. Pure thrill ride, creative, and definitely better than the first.

Have you seen Ghost World or American Splendor? I think you'd like them

I don't know man, I'm just tired of Nolan's paper-thin nihilism. I think the failure (in my eyes) of TDKR is what truly made me reexamine his back catalogue & in turn sent me running in the other direction.

I put Spider-Man II & Hellboy II there because their action sequences are much clearer: they have a more firm grasp on geometry (come on, that tunnel sequence is abysmal), and are flat out more enjoyable. The characters also speak volumes more to me than the self important Dark Knight world. I'd prefer it if Nolan just got out of the blockbuster business.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Have you seen Ghost World or American Splendor? I think you'd like them

I don't know man, I'm just tired of Nolan's paper-thin nihilism. I think the failure (in my eyes) of TDKR is what truly made me reexamine his back catalogue & in turn sent me running in the other direction.

Nope but I've heard a lot about both. I'll add to watchlist, thanks.

TDKR is not that bad. Its best aspects were the Batman Begins-esque climbing sequence and the new cast: Bane, Catwoman, and Talia. Although I was pissed that Talia was underused, it was for good reason due to the reveal. Most of my complaints were nitpicking and defenses against Nolan worshippers, but it is clear as day that the film comes nowhere close to the first two. Many flaws were still apparent to me.

I put Spider-Man II & Hellboy II there because their action sequences are much clearer: they have a more firm grasp on geometry (come on, that tunnel sequence is abysmal), and are flat out more enjoyable. The characters also speak volumes more to me than the self important Dark Knight world. I'd prefer it if Nolan just got out of the blockbuster business.

I would love that as well, not because he doesn't know how to spend his money, but because of his following. Nolan fanboys are the worst because they try to blur everything into brilliance when in reality you have to separate the two, popular reception vs. actual quality (not saying you aren't). Most people I know that do not know much about film just praise Inception as the greatest movie of all time. It kind of bugs me inside because the same fascinating concepts have been executed well before such as in Paprika, yet Inception gets all the credit because it is widespread and accessible. So for me, the blockbuster label isn't so much a downfall in quality as it is a potent irritant in cinema.

Nolan is undoubtedly a master filmmaker. Just concerning his trilogy alone, Batman Begins was one of my favorite movies before TDK was even announced. I have adored his take on Batman from the very beginning, and TDK is undoubtedly his (and the) peak because it transcends the superhero genre.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

That would be A History of Violence, my friend

I despises History of Violence, it's such a predictable and jarring film. I prefer Sin City to it, because while that film is hollow, the style is fun and the characters are pretty interesting regardless of how they're written. It's just a film that suits being cinematic as well.

Oh yeah, watching Iron Man 3 later...

[jvince]

Brief Encounter (1945)
dir. David Lean

The Good: Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 -- arguably one of the greatest romantic theme songs ever; It's so good, Eric Carmen ripped it off. Excellent cinematography. Wonderfully understated performances, especially from Celia Johnson. The final act... So damn romantic, it's perfect.

The Bad: A tad boring in spots. That awkward moment when you find yourself unconsciously singing 'All By Myself'.

The Bottom Line: Miles better than Casablanca. I plan to revisit this again some other time. I have a feeling I'll like it even more upon repeat viewing. Recommended, especially for fans of romantic films.