The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Spirit Zero]

My Name Is Bruce (2007)

Directed co-produced and starring the main man Bruce Campbell, judging by the title and the whole premise of the film would you say this is a vanity project?. Well I kinda think it is really and whether you actually like the film or not depends completely on your personal preference to Mr Campbell.

The plot is as old as the hills, a parody comedy on Campbell himself. BC plays an over the top unlikable version of himself, a big movie star fallen from grace and eking out an existence in B-movie trash, but not popular B-movie trash. He is brought to a small town to help them defeat a supernatural problem involving a Chinese demon. Of course everyone thinks BC is the brave hero he is in his movies, but alas he's a selfish coward.

The concept is nice but overused, it really is. The idea that Bruce plays a narcissistic big headed coward who is nothing like his film persona is also a nice idea...but again totally overused. The majority of this film is merely showing how much of an ******* Bruce's character is, mocking what he obviously goes through in his daily life with fanboys and movie producers plus parodying his schlock horror film career. So yes BC can have a laugh at himself it seems which is good but at the same time you do feel the whole thing is a tad of an ego trip. You may as well of called the film 'Bruce Campbell: The Ultimate B-Movie Action Hero'...as that's almost what its implying. Yep its probably true but really?.

The other thing is nothing really happens in the film, its not really very exciting or fun. Sure there is some decapitations and blood and the odd bit of amusing dialog but its really quite dull. Its not helped by the unadventurous sets and location which all seem so...not eerie. Its obviously meant to be along the lines of previous BC films with a low budget and cheesy effects, mocking the Evil Dead franchise mainly, but it just looks so bland. All you get is the odd swirl of mist here and there.

Then there is the demon, a big samurai demon even though he's suppose to be Chinese?. This guy looks like a ghostie from the Scooby Doo live action films! really he just looks lame. Yes again he's not meant to be a top of the range boogeyman with excellent makeup and costume but I just feel more could of been done to up the anti a bit. I mean it really does feel like a live action Scooby Doo flick half the time, could of at least had some more harsh language guys. It really feels like they wanted the project to be done by Raimi, but he didn't, so they tried their best to make it as close to that as possible.

The finale of the film does show us why everything does look as it does this is true, but I don't really like that twist honestly. Feels like a cop out when it could of been a straighter parody with BC being the douchebag and having a real adventure to cope with. In the end it just kinda feels like a waste of time with nothing much happening and another cult franchise for Campbell to lap up and take all the glory with. I do like the guy but this film just feels too self indulgent for me truth be told, regurgitating all his best one liners over and over. I know that's part of the parody but it feels excessive. Could of been a great spooky comedy but its very tepid at best.

4/10

[jvince]

http://vimeo.com/9240644

Hedgehog in the Fog (1975)
dir. Yuri Norstein

The Good: It's hailed by critics as one of the greatest animated films ever made, but somehow, this masterpiece remains an obscure and forgotten gem. Hedgehog in the Fog tells a rather simple story—a hedgehog is on his way to his friend's place when, due to his curiosity, he gets lost in a dense fog and encounters all sorts of strange, terrifying creatures. It may seem like a small tale, but it's one that's rich in symbolisms and filled with deeper meanings. A haunting, profound metaphor for routines and inquisitiveness, for friendship and for childhood, for the childlike wonder and for the fear of the unknown—for life. Yuri Norstein's animation is quite unique in that he uses only cut-outs and tracing paper—in conjunction with Mikhail Meerovich's eerie musical score—to create this magical, surreal, dream-like world unlike any other that can be both frightening and full of wonder.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: The world is vast and life is finite. It doesn't hurt to venture into the fog every once in a while. So, go ahead. You never know what amazing thing you might find. Hedgehog in the Fog comes highly recommended.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by bunkz323

I was going to watch this but then had changed my mind to watch maybe Thor, but now reading yout review makes me want to see it more, i love the 03 film but i think i could still enjoy this.

Yeah, go check it out. Thor 2 is a lot better though, imo.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I agree! You didn't mention the Raptors. I think they were the best dinosaur parts in the movie.

I like the raptors in the original the most. The lab scene is great though.

Originally Posted by Diesel

I give this a 2.5/5.

Watched Catching Fire several days ago and gave it a 4/5. So much better.

Still not great...but it fixed a lot of the problems from the first for me and was enjoyable.

Yup.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

No.

No?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

No?

Yeah, the concept just isn't my cup of tea.

[jvince]

Wes Anderson Hotel Chevalier (2007) HD - YouTube

Hotel Chevalier (2007)
dir. Wes Anderson

The Good: Lovely cinematography. Lovely Natalie Portman. Peter Sarstedt's 'Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)'. Anderson sure knows how to pick great songs.

The Bad: Anderson has a knack for creating great characters. Schwartzman and Portman's characters don't feel like Wes Anderson characters. These people are bland and uninteresting.

The Bottom Line: I didn't care much for this film. Not one of Wes Anderson's best moments.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yeah, the concept just isn't my cup of tea.

You don't like the kids killing each other plot? I think you'll like the sequel then.

[Spirit Zero]

2 Guns (2013)

Whoa never knew this was adapted from a graphic novel, whether that work is any good I don't know (obviously) so I can't compare here. The main carrot on the stick here is...I don't know if there is one, so I guess its the team up of Washington and Wahlberg. Yep its another buddy action flick but this time one guy is undercover DEA and the other is an undercover Naval Intelligence Officer.

So that's the main surprise up front, you'd half expect this to be a straight up crime thriller with two lowdown criminals double crossing each other amidst much dark humour. Either that or you'd expect this to be a straight up buddy cop action thriller with lots of rebellious anti rule book attitude...but you'd be wrong. Two undercover uniforms trying to knab the same bad guy by stealing money from him so they can do him for money laundering. Thing is the cash belongs to the CIA and they want it back by any means necessary. And at the same time the Navy wants the cash for its own purposes, or some dirty officers do anyway.

Yes its yet another double crossing twist filled plot with lots of characters and various sub plots which leaves you wondering who's gonna get shot by their so called partner next. What I did like about this film is the fact that its uniforms fighting against each other, Navy, CIA and DEA, with some standard issue drug dealers in for good measure. That's the only original idea on the plate, the rest is just a mess of your average factory line greed induced back stabbing which has been done to death now.

The main duo played by Washington and Wahlberg are a good combination no doubt, they work well together and play off each other surprisingly well despite their clash in styles. It does feel a bit off track at times with Wahlberg coming across like the type of character you'd expect to see in a film like this, a kind of '48 Hours' actioner. Where as Washington does at times feel a tad out of place, he's a good strong actor and almost feels too rigid for the role, too epic if you will, for such a quickfire thriller.

Twenty minutes in and I was bored, sorry but I was. Nothing really happens in the film other than a lot of snappy dialog which tries to be smarter than it really is. The films poster shows the highlight of the movie probably because there isn't anything else to brag about. Olmos does make a good Mexican drug dealer in that stereotypical type of way, the dude looks so damn cheesy its almost funny. Where as Paxton is trying way way too hard to be a memorable bad guy and failing embarrassingly. He isn't in the least bit threatening or intimidating much like everyone else in the film, its just all wind and no fart.

A disappointing film which I can't really call an action film as it has none, and I can't really call a thriller as...you guessed it, it has no thrills. The only thing it can offer is the odd scene with the main duo verbally kicking ass, mainly Wahlberg as he's the smart ass, apart from that its got nothing. Even the big finale shootout can't save this I'm afraid, seen it all before, move along.

4.5/10

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

You don't like the kids killing each other plot? I think you'll like the sequel then.

Nope, I distinctly remember Squid finding the whole film completely wank.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by foggy

nope, i distinctly remember squid finding the whole film completely wank.

:d

Originally Posted by squidpuppet

the hunger games

how the hell did this reach 84 at rotten tomatoes?

A crapfest of epic proportions. I did not read the book. If the film is a good adaptation of the book, then the book is crap as well.

I have no problem with the premise of a dystopian future and "the games" themselves. I like dark stuff. In fact, the story sounded cool to me. But, if a film presents itself as serious, and expects to be taken seriously, it needs to be a cohesive sum of all its parts. The hunger games never even comes close. Its a laughable film actually, a joke.

I can easily suspend disbelief for a fantasy/fiction piece, but not when the very most basic elements are complete absurdities and we are given no reason to overlook them.

The very core of the movie/story is dark and sinister. Presenting it as anything else will be a failure, regardless of how talented the writers and director are.

A few problems:

1. The world is ultra modern yet coal is still used, and, mined by hand.

2. The tributes are trained together. These are people who will soon compete in life or death gladiator games against one another, yet they are having fun training together. "ridiculous" doesnt even begin to describe the stupidity and impossibility of that concept.

3. The tributes are turned into celebrities before the games begin. While i understand the promoters reasons for attempting this, as lame as it is, the tributes would never comply, let alone enjoy it.

4. Our heroine, katniss everdeen is a smart and skilled hunter. Yet once the games begin she becomes more ignorant than an untrained 10 year old. Her first move is to

[Show spoiler]climb a tree and strap herself in,

making herself perfectly imobilized prey. A sitting duck for anyone with a bow and arrow or a spear.

5. Tributes "team up". Whatever. Its a battle to the death with only one man (allowed) standing at the end. No one, and i mean no one would ever trust anyone else long enough to act as a team under those circumstances.

6. Once the "evil team" finds katniss, they cant seem to hit her with their arrows or spears. And they never even consider lighting the tree on fire.

7. The father of the cute little black girl has no problem sending his sweet young daughter into a fight to the death, but starts a riot when she gets nailed. Thats just stupid writing on every level.

8. Tons more....

Now for some technical shortcomings:

1. Cinematography sucked. The movie is 142 minutes long. Do we really need 139 minutes of closeups? Tom stern has shot some good movies, but he got it all wrong here. Shakey cam is overused here, and used in the wrong scenes too, for no apparent reason.

2. Editing sucked. Constant cuts that add nothing to the mood. Even during slow, sad, emotionally touching moments its "camera 1, then camera 2, then camera 3, then back to camera 1, then camera 4, then from camera 5 on a crane above, then back to 3 for a close up of the eyes" and on and on and on. Too much is not a good thing, its just too much.

3. The score. Was there one? I must have missed it.

4. Acting from most of the males was horrifically aweful. In particular, liam hemsworth was award winninly bad. Lawrence was a good as she could be given the crap lines she had.

5. Cgi was really bad. Especially the cat/dog beasts. I could do better with a crayola on tissue paper on a hot august afternoon in direct sunlight.

6. Hair and makeup. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. And thats too bad, since there was such a big emphasis on it.

7. Tons more.

The good:

1. The sets and costumes were pretty cool.

I made it through it mostly because i was curious, it was free, and because i was in the comfort of my own home. Had i seen it in the theater i would have walked out and asked for my money back before the games even began.

film 2/5
pq 4.5/5
aq 4.5/5

[jvince]

jean pierre jeunet foutaises with english subtitle - YouTube

Things I Like, Things I Don't Like (1989)
dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet

The Good: Jean-Pierre Jeunet + Dominique Pinon. 'Nuff said.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: Foutaises is basically an earlier, black-and-white version of the character intros in Amélie. If you're a fan of Jeunet, you should check this out.

[Abdrewes]

Spike Lee's latest film is a remake, so that means either one of two things: either he saw a fresh angle into the material and decided it was a necessary film to make or he is simply acting as a gun for hire for a big budget studio system that is hellbent on remaking every property that has the smallest chance to return profit. Sadly, his involvement here belongs in the latter category. Sure, the story of a man who was framed for his wife's murder while being held captive for twenty years is the gnariest material Lee has ever worked with, but the results aren't that freeing, splattery exercise we all hoped for. Oldboy is saddled with some of the most drab staging in the director's career. Take, for example, the re-imagining of the brawl where Oh Dae-su (Joe Doucett in this version) takes on dozens of henchmen with a hammer. The scene now takes place in a wider hallway, thus the uncanny Kill Bill effect wherein the extras are swinging at points five feet away from our tormented antihero is magnified to a great degree. It looks phony and so does the rest of the film. Scenes that should brim with darkly-comic brio waddle around like an aimless duck.

Writer Mark Protosevich and Spike Lee clearly tried to put a new spin on the material, but the mechanics of the narrative remain in tact. All the small plot deviations—a television program now assumes the role of the hypnotist, Joe Doucett is released to the world in a coffin rather than on a rooftop, utilizing iPhone apps cut out some of the investigative work, etcetera—come across as ephemeral rather than integral to the story. Further, these sundries often undercut the dark allure innate to the material. By augmenting the time Joe spent in captivity from fifteen to twenty years, that only neuters some of the twisted effect of the grand reveal—which is clouded with the inclusion of a couple extra red herrings, but should prove painfully obvious for anyone paying attention. This is lobotomized noir at it's most debilitated.

Momentarily, the Spike Lee we know percolates through, but unfortunately it's the ham-fisted "everything's political" side. The televised inaugurations of the last three presidents, and the footage of the September 11th attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster mark the years of Doucett's imprisonment. I suppose there is an allegorical link between Joe Doucett's story and that of the last twenty years of our nation, but I fail to see it. If he is a stand-in for America, then who is the real life equivalent of Doucett's tormentor? What is the implication of the incestuous component of the story? I don't think Spike Lee has an answer. Just like the faux-gritty grainy look of the film, the political and religious imagery are just pretty embellishments that are designed to cast the illusion of meaning.

I guess this film would suffice for anyone who hasn't seen the original Park Chan-wook film; after all, the Jeep driving jocks in the row behind me, howled with delight over each predictable plot twist. Apart from the poster of the grinning bellhop in Joe's room, seemingly mocking Doucett's plight, I fail to see much comedy in such moments as the one where Doucett realizes that the woman he has been sleeping with is actually his daughter. I suppose mistaking the film for camp is only fitting because the film is a purposeless mass of nihilistic set pieces and flat performances. Any reaction to the material is acceptable. It is true that the original stretched the limits of plausibility, it probably passed them too, but it was imbued with purpose. It ventured so deep into the psyches of Oh Dae-su and his captor that the residual effect would be felt days after seeing the film. Watching that final snow-set scene where Oh Dae-su stares into the sky, with an ignorant smile that suggested a life ruined, felt like being suspended forever in his place of purgatory. Here on the other hand, nothing is captivating enough to keep you from checking your watch.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

[Show spoiler]Spike Lee's latest film is a remake, so that means either one of two things: either he saw a fresh angle into the material and decided it was a necessary film to make or he is simply acting as a gun for hire for a big budget studio system that is hellbent on remaking every property that has the smallest chance to return profit. Sadly, his involvement here belongs in the latter category. Sure, the story of a man who was framed for his wife's murder while being held captive for twenty years is the gnariest material Lee has ever worked with, but the results aren't that freeing, splattery exercise we all hoped for. Oldboy is saddled with some of the most drab staging in the director's career. Take, for example, the re-imagining of the brawl where Oh Dae-su (Joe Doucett in this version) takes on dozens of henchmen with a hammer. The scene now takes place in a wider hallway, thus the uncanny Kill Bill effect wherein the extras are swinging at points five feet away from our tormented antihero is magnified to a great degree. It looks phony and so does the rest of the film. Scenes that should brim with darkly-comic brio waddle around like an aimless duck.

Writer Mark Protosevich and Spike Lee clearly tried to put a new spin on the material, but the mechanics of the narrative remain in tact. All the small plot deviations—a television program now assumes the role of the hypnotist, Joe Doucett is released to the world in a coffin rather than on a rooftop, utilizing iPhone apps cut out some of the investigative work, etcetera—come across as ephemeral rather than integral to the story. Further, these sundries often undercut the dark allure innate to the material. By augmenting the time Joe spent in captivity from fifteen to twenty years, that only neuters some of the twisted effect of the grand reveal—which is clouded with the inclusion of a couple extra red herrings, but should prove painfully obvious for anyone paying attention. This is lobotomized noir at it's most debilitated.

Momentarily, the Spike Lee we know percolates through, but unfortunately it's the ham-fisted "everything's political" side. The televised inaugurations of the last three presidents, and the footage of the September 11th attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster mark the years of Doucett's imprisonment. I suppose there is an allegorical link between Joe Doucett's story and that of the last twenty years of our nation, but I fail to see it. If he is a stand-in for America, then who is the real life equivalent of Doucett's tormentor? What is the implication of the incestuous component of the story? I don't think Spike Lee has an answer. Just like the faux-gritty grainy look of the film, the political and religious imagery are just pretty embellishments that are designed to cast the illusion of meaning.

I guess this film would suffice for anyone who hasn't seen the original Park Chan-wook film; after all, the Jeep driving jocks in the row behind me, howled with delight over each predictable plot twist. Apart from the poster of the grinning bellhop in Joe's room, seemingly mocking Doucett's plight, I fail to see much comedy in such moments as the one where Doucett realizes that the woman he has been sleeping with is actually his daughter. I suppose mistaking the film for camp is only fitting because the film is a purposeless mass of nihilistic set pieces and flat performances. Any reaction to the material is acceptable. It is true that the original stretched the limits of plausibility, it probably passed them too, but it was imbued with purpose. It ventured so deep into the psyches of Oh Dae-su and his captor that the residual effect would be felt days after seeing the film. Watching that final snow-set scene where Oh Dae-su stares into the sky, with an ignorant smile that suggested a life ruined, felt like being suspended forever in his place of purgatory. Here on the other hand, nothing is captivating enough to keep you from checking your watch.

Judging by your review, 2 stars sounds way too kind.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Judging by your review, 2 stars sounds way too kind.

Lol. I was tempted to go 1.5/4. When does it hit theaters on your side of the pond?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Lol. I was tempted to go 1.5/4. When does it hit theaters on your side of the pond?

Apparently next Friday, although I've seen nothing advertised at all, so I haven't really got a clue. I'll probably take a last minute dodge from it, everything I'm reading makes it feel really dull, I was at least hoping for something interesting here.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Apparently next Friday, although I've seen nothing advertised at all, so I haven't really got a clue. I'll probably take a last minute dodge from it, everything I'm reading makes it feel really dull, I was at least hoping for something interesting here.

It is very dull actually (save those cutaways to the bellhop poster). I honestly can't think of one thing this remake does better. If you drop money for a matinee ticket, I'm confident you'll walk away disappointed. This is not one of those high caliber reimagining ala David Fincher. This is a phoned-in meh-nstrosity

You heard the news about Wolf on Wall Street? 3 HOURS! Whoah!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

It is very dull actually (save those cutaways to the bellhop poster). I honestly can't think of one thing this remake does better. If you drop money for a matinee ticket, I'm confident you'll walk away disappointed. This is not one of those high caliber reimagining ala David Fincher. This is a phoned-in meh-nstrosity

You heard the news about Wolf on Wall Street? 3 HOURS! Whoah!

Of course, I bet there isn't a moment of lag in that 3 hours of well. Pretty excited for Scorsese's new one, it just seems like utter brilliance to me. Shame I've got to wait a couple of weeks after you guys for it to land.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Of course, I bet there isn't a moment of lag in that 3 hours of well. Pretty excited for Scorsese's new one, it just seems like utter brilliance to me. Shame I've got to wait a couple of weeks after you guys for it to land.

it looks Movie of the year good, to be honest. Twenty bucks says a group of people will be crying in February that this should have won best picture and not The Departed. Mark my words.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

it looks Movie of the year good, to be honest. Twenty bucks says a group of people will be crying in February that this should have won best picture and not The Departed. Mark my words.

Seems like the Oscars is going to be a packed house this year, Wolf of Wall Street, Llewyn Davis, American Hustle, Gravity and 12 Years a Slave are all guaranteed nominations, then you have stuff like Her, Dallas Buyers Club, Captain Phillips, The Butler (and to lesser degrees, Walter Mitty, All is Lost and Mr. Banks) makes this year simply baffling.

[Spirit Zero]

Red (2010)

You know this idea had to come along at some point. Take the basic action premise of various spy flicks like Bond 'Mission: Impossible' and 'True Lies', then make the main characters retired old agents, super spy pensioners.

The plot is pretty much like any other flick in this genre, corruption that leads all the way up to the top, assassinations, intrigue and cover ups. Its Bruce Willis and his ex-team members who have been targeted by the CIA for termination due to previous unearthed information. So its up to them to get to the bottom of the it and uncover...errr the cover up.

The film is yet another comic book adaptation of another comic I've never heard of so I can't compare. A lavish cast from top to bottom because its a big Hollywood production, thusly the visuals and action are also lavish as hell. Now whether or not this is a good thing I'm not sure, I don't know how accurate this is to the comic book firstly and secondly I think it can take away from the whole experience because its too 'Hollywood-ish.'

There's nothing wrong with a glossy action thriller but they do tend to look the same. You don't really feel invested in the story because its all so neat, clean and shiny, there's no grit, no real sense of danger, all the cast are dolled up in layers of obvious makeup (Mirren) and you know no one of any real importance is gonna die and if they do chances are they will come back in the sequel.

That being said I can't deny this film is a reasonably fun ride with semi decent action sequences that all do look quite comic book-esque. The sharp visuals do give it a certain bold colourful style that comes across as quirky but with some dark undertones. I do like how the film is violent to a degree, its not a blood bath but you do see bullet hits, injuries and plenty of death...yet it seems to get tamer towards the end methinks. My best description would be akin to 'Kick-Ass' but not as violent and without the profanity. It is quite fun to see older action heroes taking out elite hit squads, the sight of Helen Mirren using a massive tripod mounted anti tank machine gun in a ball gown was quite funny.

It is all very predictable to be honest, this ain't no Bourne plot folks, did you really think Willis would lose his damsel in distress?. Some good action sequences, amusing dialog mainly coming from Malkovich who was the best character by far and a really good fight between Urban and Willis amazingly. The very end sequence unfortunately is too daft and comes across more like a Monty Python moment rather than a top action flick. For people like myself who don't know anything about the comic book the hook is old folk as super spies which is admittedly fun, apart from that its basically business as usual with nothing too ground breaking going on.

6/10

[jvince]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
dir. Philip Kaufman

The Good: Superb cast—Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright, and Leonard ****ing Nimoy. Great themes. Genuinely creepy. Cool special effects. Brooke Adams' crazy eyes. Memorable ending.

The Bad: The twists can be seen coming from a mile away. The romantic subplot feels tacked on. It bothers me how such a nicely shot film could make the mistake of having the cameraman visible several times. Those damn screeches are guaranteed to haunt you in your sleep.

The Bottom Line: A thrilling, atmospheric tale of paranoia, Philip Kaufman's Body Snatchers is one of those rare remakes that actually justifies its existence. Recommended, especially for sci-fi/horror fans.