The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Hmm I didn't feel tooled, mostly because I believe that is how mass paranoia would have really taken place. While I'm inclined to agree that the film's theme could have been handled in a more complex fashion, its perspective provokes self-reflection and stresses the importance of innocent until proven guilty (burden of proof). Ignorance itself is one-dimensional. It is the infuriating truth about the hive mind, even if it was delivered straightforward and perhaps overbearing.

Yet even under burden of proof, what parent would take the risk of possibly dropping off their kids to a pedophile? That is a complex issue in itself.

First, thank you for keeping me in check, DJ. That was really great constructive criticism. I should have elaborated in my review that it came off as manipulative because of all these factors. That's the key to a decent review:making all the points you make count.

And yes: Ignorance IS one-dimensional, but the people that practice it are generally more complex. The film really drops the ball here. The closest it gets to nuance is in the character of Theo, but when it boils down to it, he just has a slightly conflicted heart.

You see, this is what frustrates me. I wished Vinterberg cared enough to say something deeper than "ignorance is bad." Well, we already know that, so tell us something interesting. What's the point of "nodding-head cinema?"

[Abdrewes]

One last little point. THE GIRLFRIEND.

The screenplay showed no interest to explore her perception of Lucas. She basically just stays silent the entire movie and only pops up when the plot dictates her to. I was very intrigued to see where her story would lead after the first act, but Vinterberg completely let me down.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

First, thank you for keeping me in check, DJ. That was really great constructive criticism. I should have elaborated in my review that it came off as manipulative because of all these factors. That's the key to a decent review:making all the points you make count.

Thanks and keep up the great reviews.

And yes: Ignorance IS one-dimensional, but the people that practice it are generally more complex. The film really drops the ball here. The closest it gets to nuance is in the character of Theo, but when it boils down to it, he just has a slightly conflicted heart.

I agree that the film would have benefited from deeper and more interesting characters. Though I liked the focus right on Mads' great performance, which I did find quite nuanced.

You see, this is what frustrates me. I wished Vinterberg cared enough to say something deeper than "ignorance is bad." Well, we already know that, so tell us something interesting. What's the point of "nodding-head cinema?"

"nodding-head cinema"

I thought it was a strong message. A very difficult idea not just to grasp in our society but to sympathize with. And it's not just about ignorance, it's about injustice and innocence. I really believe that this specific context is not something many of us would have otherwise played through in our minds. That maybe OJ really was innocent, so to speak.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

One last little point. THE GIRLFRIEND.

The screenplay showed no interest to explore her perception of Lucas. She basically just stays silent the entire movie and only pops up when the plot dictates her to. I was very intrigued to see where her story would lead after the first act, but Vinterberg completely let me down.

Agreed, she was a pawn to the plot and nothing more.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Thanks and keep up the great reviews.



I agree that the film would have benefited from deeper and more interesting characters. Though I liked the focus right on Mads' great performance, which I did find quite nuanced.



"nodding-head cinema"

I thought it was a strong message. A very difficult idea not just to grasp in our society but to sympathize with. And it's not just about ignorance, it's about injustice and innocence. I really believe that this specific context is not something many of us would have otherwise played through in our minds. That maybe OJ really was innocent, so to speak.

Good points, man. If nothing else, the film does ask you to reconsider the urge to jump to conclusions. And at the end of the day, that is something of a universal truth. So, really, if it felt urgent to someone else, that is only a very big positive. There are worse things out there than "nodding-head cinema" .

[Spirit Zero]

Death Becomes Her (1992)

A film about rich and famous folk trying desperately to cling on to their youthful looks by any means necessary, well mainly women in this case. Gee not too far from the truth really is it, seeing these two aging Hollywood female stars, neither of which are particularly attractive in my book, acting narcissistic egotistical and spoilt whilst under thick layers of makeup. I think the trowels of makeup are the only way these two can achieve any remote level of beauty frankly.

The plot is all about a magic potion that...errr magically turns people into younger firmer versions of themselves and gives you immortality. A potion of youth and eternal life, but the trick is you must disappear from public view after ten years to keep the secret...errrrrrm secret, yeah. So naturally you can expect the cliched spectacle of seeing various ultra famous people popping up who have never really died from the public eye, forever immortal stars people wanna believe are still with us eg. James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis etc...

The first thing that hits you is how can this supposedly sexy siren (Isabelle Rossellini), who's real age is 71, keep this amazing secret under wraps in LA of all places!. She has dished it out to so many famous people who all abuse their fame it seems, its incredible she hasn't been discovered. She's an illegal magic potion dealer with muscle bound henchmen who are also all on it. I would of thought it might also get harder to hide this when people die and start to walk around like decaying zombies as we see slowly with the main two characters.

The other niggling bit is where exactly does she get this potion from? she seems to have quite a lot of it, does she make it in the basement?. And while I'm on it, her massive mansion, is that suppose to be 'disappearing from the public eye'?! really?? I mean seriously you couldn't get anymore attention if you tried!, the house is a freakin' castle!.

Yes the films plot is totally full of holes but I guess its not suppose to be remotely serious, just a silly fantasy. To a degree it does work, this is mainly down to the terrific special effects that at the time were virtually groundbreaking. It was quite good ghoulish fun seeing Streep and Hawn battle it out 'Beetlejuice' style with all the undead goofiness. Willis doesn't really do much accept scream the whole time and the sets have a nice modern gothic style accompanied by crashing lighting and thunder, which is cool for all the goths out there (like myself).

When it came out this was a pretty big hit as I recall, stayed in the cinema a while and I did enjoy it when I saw it (at the cinema, mum LOVED it!). Looking back it doesn't really hold up, sure the effects are still quite neat and there are some amusing bits, but generally its so stupid, lame and completely makes no sense...which ruins it in the end. Its pretty much a live action cartoon with a wafer thin plot, the poster is also a complete rehash of 'The Witches of Eastwick', best stick with that movie though.


4/10

[Steve46]

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Biography, Comedy, Crime, 179 minutes
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and Margot Robbie

Martin Scorsese's last movie was the family-friendly Hugo, so I guess he felt the need to make something a little more controversial this time around. The Wolf of Wall Street is bold, loud, and a totally wild ride for three hours. There are more than 500 F-bombs, sex, plenty of nudity, drugs everywhere, and even a little violence.

Like Goodfellas, the movie uses voice-overs to give the audience an insight into how the characters think. We learn that Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) made $49 million when he was 26-years-old, but he's annoyed that it was $3 million short of a million per week. The story is non-linear, so we can also see how Belfort started in the business as a stockbroker, and the events that led to him owning his own company.

Belfort's initial job is terminated, and for a short while he's desperate for work. But then he takes a chance on a small local firm which claims to be in the same business as his previous company. When he arrives, the employees are sitting around in jeans. There are no computers of any kind. The stocks being traded are only worth a few cents, but the rate of commission is 50 percent. In a very convincing scene, Belfort's character makes a $4,000 sale, earning him $2,000 on the spot. The other employees can't believe what they are seeing.

This initial success enables Belfort to buy a fancy car and he attracts the attention of his neighbor, Donnie (Jonah Hill). After learning that Belfort made $72,000 the previous month, Donnie begs him for a job and quits his own immediately. Belfort is gifted at sales and convincing people to do things his way, He hires a collection of apparent losers, writes sales scripts, and teaches them how to sell. These scenes are very funny, and the whole venture succeeds brilliantly. Belfort is beginning to think anything is possible.

The movie will appeal to a large number of people because Belfort essentially has the life that others dream about. He does and says what he wants, marries a beautiful woman, lives in a huge house, and buys just about anything his heart desires. He speculates to his employees that we all want such wealth, and let's face it, the vast majority of people dream of that kind of life.

Some of the dialogue is excellent. For instance, one scene shows Belfort taking advice on dwarf tossing. He has a perfectly serious conversation about the legality of the idea, and wants to know the extent of his liabilities. Because it's serious, it's funny. One of the biggest laughs comes when we see a scene from Belfort's perspective and later learn the truth about what really happened. If you see the movie, you'll know which one I am talking about. The heavy drug use does cast some doubts about the accuracy of what we are seeing as it's mostly from Belfort's perspective.

In rather predictable fashion, these largely illegal practices eventually catch up with him. However, I won't spoil the outcome by talking about how he deals with his problems.

DiCaprio is outrageous for much of the movie. At times I thought I was watching Jack Nicholson around 40 years ago. If you recall Nicholson's performances in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or The Shining, the manic quality is similar to DiCaprio's turn as Belfort. If you aren't squeamish about nudity and bad language, The Wolf of Wall Street is a lot of fun. It felt as if 90 minutes had gone by when the credits rolled, but it was three hours. I can imagine watching this one over and over.

Overall score 4.5/5

[Spirit Zero]

Escape Plan (2013)

The film formerly known as 'The Tomb' and 'Exit Plan' gives us Arnie and Sly together again (becoming a habit), shame they never did this in their prime huh. One things for sure, the time away from the movie world hasn't been kind to Arnie acting wise. Not that he was much of an actor before but my Lord is he bad in this!.

So Sly breaks out of top prisons for a living to see how good their security is, he is also paid shitzillions for doing so apparently. He then manages to get himself locked up in some ultra uber prison and naturally finds it a tad harder than expected. So in the end he must utilise the skills of another inmate called Arnold Schwarzenegger, basically its an extreme bondage and restraint fetish film hehe.

The basic premise of this is pretty much the Chris Lambert flick 'Fortress', you can expect all the regular prison cliches and stereotypes from big bald violent inmates and sadistic wardens...hell what else would you expect?. Thing is the film feels like some kind of trashy low budget affair you'd expect to see JCVD, Seagal or Snipes in, the whole thing even looks pretty bland and uninteresting. Well it doesn't look like a prison put it that way, more like a level in The Crystal Maze...darlings.

Apart from the cheesy techno visuals the film is also pretty ropey with its plot in various places. The entire prison is actually set within a massive cargo ship that floats off the coast of Africa/Morocco. Now surely at some point you might detect you're on a boat, there would be movement, motion, certain sounds, the shape of your surroundings, people tend to know when they're on a vessel generally. Sly's character also seems to be very very clever in this film which I can buy sure, making a homemade sextant? hmmm maybe I guess, they way he works out so easily the ship is off the coast of Morocco? errr getting a bit far fetched and the way Arnie keeps playing the warden time after time in the most obvious way. Anyone can tell he's up to something come on! and the moment he grabs that flat round piece of metal? oh come on now, there were about six guards on him at the time people!!.

Vinnie Jones lets what's left of the film down by playing the exact same character he's almost always played (the vicious bad guy in case you didn't know). Sam Neill is the doctor who for some reason suddenly decides or realises he's working for bad guys the minute Sly talks to him. Never mind the fact he's been working there for some time, only now it dawns on him, oh then he vanishes for the last part of the film without a trace. Vincent D'Onofrio is clearly a bad guy tricking everyone right from the start, geez come on! and warden Caviezel is as predictable a villain as they come. Gets all his men to monitor C block because they see Sly sending a Morse code message yet failing to think it could be a setup and leaving all the other blocks virtually unguarded!? way to go boss.

The film is trying to be some super bad ass prison adventure but it lacks both the gritty violence for serious Arnie/Sly fanboys and the fun adventure for everyone else. It lingers in action violence limbo. The plot plods along slowly in between rather pitiful looking fights and boring punishment sequences, all the while in this stale grey and black coloured environment. The inclusion of Muslim inmates against some Nazi inmates is the only thing to suggest this film has been made recently and not twenty years ago when it probably would have been black and Latino inmates.

To finish off this cookie cutter Hollywood production you are given Arnie in 'Commando' mode with a big gun and lots and lots of faceless (literately) henchmen prison guards getting shots to bits all over the show. How many of these guys were on this ship??!. I guess you could say it doesn't really feel very special for either of the main stars, anyone could have been in these roles, absolutely any action star and it wouldn't make any difference. The fact they cast Arnie and Sly is probably to try and boost the entire averageness of the film. It just ain't hard enough to worry the classic 80's vehicles, a pale weak effort that is too dated with its ideas and an increasingly old looking Arnie (way more so than Sly).

4/10

[Abdrewes]

In Ralph Fiennes first film in the director's chair, Coriolanus, he allowed the Paul Greengrass inspired guerrilla hand-held aesthetic to neutralize the potency of the Shakespearean play it was based on. But in The Invisible Woman, based on the Claire Tomalin's 1991 book of the same name, he is much more observant to the languors, nuances, and dramatics of the original work. Fiennes, also playing Dickens here, has taken a step back and and found a means to make the past bristle with life without employing fourth-wall breaking theatrics and gimmicks of other kinds. In short, it represents a quantum leap for his capacity as a director.

The Invisible Woman opens with a panoramic vista where a woman, clad in funereal black, traces a perpendicular path from the beating waves of the English Margate beaches. This shot, returned to several times throughout the film, illustrates the film's central motif – the regret and malaise that clings to a now middle-aged schoolteacher over the ill-fated affair she had with Charles Dickens earlier in her youth. Ralph Fiennes couldn't have chosen a grander image. It casts a shadow of and sorrow over the rest of the film which charts her discontented present and the past.

In 1857, the woman in black, Ellen Ternan, begins to perform Charles Dickens' plays in the London theater circuit. She catches his eye immediately, and she reciprocates the gaze because she is very fond of his works. During an early scene, she challenges Catherine Dickens' assertion that his plays serve only as entertainment. He has evidently nestled a place in her heart long before they had even met. He recognizes this and makes his advancements in discrete ways so that society's Victorian morality does not stir.

People such as his wife and her mother catch on and it becomes an inconvenience. He is completely oblivious to his gluttonous and ignorant wife's feelings, and, hell, so are we. Charles and Ellen are perfectly suited for one another, and they are very aware of this. But two are not enough to do away with the predominant social order, so the diegesis slowly begins to veer away from their control. Ellen steadily becomes a more prominent fixture in Dickens' writing than in his day to day life and it becomes only a matter of time before their strife completely overwhelms their love.

This must sound like enough brooding to fill no less than three of The National's LPs, but make no mistake about it, there is no fashionable posturing to be found here. By allowing scenes unspool at an unhurried pace, Ralph Fiennes creates an contemplative atmosphere ripe with feeling. The knowledge we possess about the trajectory of their relationship does not undercut any tension because it is so rooted in Ellen's feelings. Everything from her transient bliss to deep heartache lands rapturously if you go with the film's staid tempo.

Fiennes' accomplished career as an actor works in tremendous favor with his pursuits as a director. The Invisible Woman is one of the best acted films of 2013. The supporting cast embody their roles, and always emote at just the right pitch. I can't think of an instance where they overstep their bounds as is often the case in Victorian period pieces. And Felicity Jones, my God! It should have been evident after 2011's Like Crazy, and now it would be downright criminal not to notice that she is one of the world's most magnetic actresses. Whether it be ephemeral pleasure, joy, angst, or the many shades of sorrow, it is etched into her delicate face. There is no question that the performance should have garnered the film another Academy Award nomination outside of that for Best Costume Design (which it should win, but probably won't).

The Invisible Woman is an utter delight that shouldn't be missed. Again, if the trailers and plot synopsis have you thinking that it is yet another stuffy awards bait costume drama, you are under the wrong assumption. It's not another story about chastising the puritanism of a bygone generation, but one about how, often unseen, social conventions contorted a relationship in unnatural ways. It recognizes the factors that cut their affair short and the beauty that informed their encounters which now only resides in the pages of his novels.

[Steve46]

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
Drama, 105 minutes
Dorected by Robert Benton
Starring Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jane Alexander and Justin Henry

We live in a world in which people watch movies to be thrilled and excited. It's difficult enough to pry someone away from their cell phone, tablet or PC for long enough to watch an entire movie. In order to cater to this trend, Hollywood has largely moved away from emotional dramas like Kramer vs. Kramer, replacing them with CGI-loaded blockbusters. If this movie had been made in 2014, there's an 87 percent chance that Ted would be a shape-shifting vampire with telekinetic powers.

That's a huge shame.

I watch my fair share of action, science fiction, and adventure movies, but most of my favorites are serious dramas. I like being made to feel something other than amazement at the visuals. Kramer vs. Kramer won five Oscars; Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay. Watching the film in 2014, those awards still seem thoroughly deserved.

This is a great story because it's so real and believable. It opens with a scene in which Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is given a major promotion at work. He's thrilled at his success and eventually makes his way home to deliver the news to wife, Joanna (Meryl Streep). Unfortunately, Joanna is just finishing the task of packing her bags, and announces that she is leaving him. Ted can't believe her poor timing, but it's clear to us that work is his main priority.

The mood changes as the reality of Ted's situation sets in. Most of the events are told from his perspective, so it's easy to empathize with his problems. His boss wants him to be available 24/7, but that's impossible if you are responsible for an 8-year-old child. Ted has relied on Joanna to take care of his son, Billy (Justin Henry), and despite his false optimism, Ted has little idea of what is involved. This is apparent when we see Ted making French toast with Billy the morning after Joanna leaves. He doesn't even know what grade his son is in at school.

The charm and beauty of the story is that Ted does everything in his power to learn, improve, and be a good father. His work inevitably suffers, but Billy is happier. Ted's neighbor (Jean Alexander) was more of a friend to Joanna than to Ted, but she sees that he has changed. She's also separated herself, and she regularly hangs out with Ted while their kids play together.

As the title would suggest, there is a court case. Some 18 months after Ted has adapted his life to Billy's needs, Joanna reappears and says that she wants custody of Billy. You have to remember that the movie was made in 1979, and it was highly unusual for a court to rule in favor of a father over a mother. Ted loves his son and thinks that he has earned the right to raise him.

One thing that strikes me is the truthfulness present throughout the whole story. Instead of tearing each other apart inside and outside the courtroom, Ted and Joanna seem to respect one another. They genuinely want what is best for Billy. Neither of the parents are cast as villains, and the film is all the better for it. What we see is a family rationally coming to terms with the problems presented by a divorce. There's no sensationalism or anything written purely for effect.

Many of the scenes were improvised by the actors, especially when Billy was involved. Hoffman was about to be divorced in his real life at the time, and I'm sure he accessed some of those emotions. The result is a brilliant performance, and Streep was effective in her more limited time on the screen. I am not a parent, but I was thoroughly engrossed in Ted's life for 105 minutes.

The Blu-ray offers a pleasing upgrade and comes with just one special feature, Finding the Truth. However, this documentary does run for around 50 minutes and contains plenty of interesting information if you are a fan of the movie. The first cut of the film was 43 minutes longer, and it would be nice to see some of the scenes that were removed, but the story is tight and tense in its final form. This is why I own older movies and continually explore films I initially missed.

There is brief nudity, but it's quite humorous, and not a reason to prevent children from seeing the movie.

Overall score 4.5/5

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
Drama, 105 minutes
Dorected by Robert Benton
Starring Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jane Alexander and Justin Henry

[Show spoiler]We live in a world in which people watch movies to be thrilled and excited. It's difficult enough to pry someone away from their cell phone, tablet or PC for long enough to watch an entire movie. In order to cater to this trend, Hollywood has largely moved away from emotional dramas like Kramer vs. Kramer, replacing them with CGI-loaded blockbusters. If this movie had been made in 2014, there's an 87 percent chance that Ted would be a shape-shifting vampire with telekinetic powers.

That's a huge shame.

I watch my fair share of action, science fiction, and adventure movies, but most of my favorites are serious dramas. I like being made to feel something other than amazement at the visuals. Kramer vs. Kramer won five Oscars; Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay. Watching the film in 2014, those awards still seem thoroughly deserved.

This is a great story because it's so real and believable. It opens with a scene in which Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is given a major promotion at work. He's thrilled at his success and eventually makes his way home to deliver the news to wife, Joanna (Meryl Streep). Unfortunately, Joanna is just finishing the task of packing her bags, and announces that she is leaving him. Ted can't believe her poor timing, but it's clear to us that work is his main priority.

The mood changes as the reality of Ted's situation sets in. Most of the events are told from his perspective, so it's easy to empathize with his problems. His boss wants him to be available 24/7, but that's impossible if you are responsible for an 8-year-old child. Ted has relied on Joanna to take care of his son, Billy (Justin Henry), and despite his false optimism, Ted has little idea of what is involved. This is apparent when we see Ted making French toast with Billy the morning after Joanna leaves. He doesn't even know what grade his son is in at school.

The charm and beauty of the story is that Ted does everything in his power to learn, improve, and be a good father. His work inevitably suffers, but Billy is happier. Ted's neighbor (Jean Alexander) was more of a friend to Joanna than to Ted, but she sees that he has changed. She's also separated herself, and she regularly hangs out with Ted while their kids play together.

As the title would suggest, there is a court case. Some 18 months after Ted has adapted his life to Billy's needs, Joanna reappears and says that she wants custody of Billy. You have to remember that the movie was made in 1979, and it was highly unusual for a court to rule in favor of a father over a mother. Ted loves his son and thinks that he has earned the right to raise him.

One thing that strikes me is the truthfulness present throughout the whole story. Instead of tearing each other apart inside and outside the courtroom, Ted and Joanna seem to respect one another. They genuinely want what is best for Billy. Neither of the parents are cast as villains, and the film is all the better for it. What we see is a family rationally coming to terms with the problems presented by a divorce. There's no sensationalism or anything written purely for effect.

Many of the scenes were improvised by the actors, especially when Billy was involved. Hoffman was about to be divorced in his real life at the time, and I'm sure he accessed some of those emotions. The result is a brilliant performance, and Streep was effective in her more limited time on the screen. I am not a parent, but I was thoroughly engrossed in Ted's life for 105 minutes.

The Blu-ray offers a pleasing upgrade and comes with just one special feature, Finding the Truth. However, this documentary does run for around 50 minutes and contains plenty of interesting information if you are a fan of the movie. The first cut of the film was 43 minutes longer, and it would be nice to see some of the scenes that were removed, but the story is tight and tense in its final form. This is why I own older movies and continually explore films I initially missed.

There is brief nudity, but it's quite humorous, and not a reason to prevent children from seeing the movie.

Overall score 4.5/5

I'm not quite sure Ted would be a vampire with telekinetic powers even today. I get your point though. I doubt the movie would be anywhere near as good if it wasn't made when it was.

This is my mother's favorite movie of all time. I hadn't seen it until a year or so ago, but I was glad to have it in my collection when I finally did.

Next time I watch the movie, I need to try to make time to watch that documentary after it. I just didn't have time the first time.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

I'm not quite sure Ted would be a vampire with telekinetic powers even today. I get your point though. I doubt the movie would be anywhere near as good if it wasn't made when it was.

This is my mother's favorite movie of all time. I hadn't seen it until a year or so ago, but I was glad to have it in my collection when I finally did.

Next time I watch the movie, I need to try to make time to watch that documentary after it. I just didn't have time the first time.

There are so many films that I need to check out, and this was one of them. My tastes didn't really evolve until about 8 years ago, so I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm surrounded by people who fall into the thrill-seeking blockbuster audience group, so I only get to watch movies that reach me on an emotional level when I am alone. That's probably why I write about them. Hoffman was at his best in Kramer vs. Kramer. Maybe because he was going through a similar thing in his own life at the time?

[Steve46]

Rush (2013)
Biography, Drama, Sports, 123 minutes
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Daniel Brühl, Chris Hemsworth, Olivia Wilde and Alexandra Maria Lara

I remember the marketing campaign for Rush, which claimed it was unmissable and full of thrills. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it's definitely not as advertised.

It's actually better, but in a different way.

The movie performed badly at the US box office, making just $27 million. Formula One racing isn't very popular in North America, so it's not hard to see why audiences weren't anxious to see the movie in theaters.

The story focuses on the 1976 Formula One championship, which came down to a battle between two men:

James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) was an English playboy more interested in pursuing the lifestyle of a superstar than devoting his life to his career. We see him drinking, smoking, and chasing beautiful women. He's carefree, controversial and irresponsible. In contrast, Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl) will do anything to succeed. He takes care of his health, goes to bed early, and seemingly has more knowledge of how to get the best out of his car than his mechanics and the team owners.

An early scene shows how Hunt and Lauda first raced together in the lower Formula Three class. Lauda is forced off the track by Hunt and takes an instant dislike to him. Over a period of six or seven years, the rivalry intensifies. Success in Formula One racing depends on the competitiveness of the car as much as the ability of the driver. Lauda negotiates a deal to drive for one of the best teams, Ferrari. Hunt resorts to begging for a position with any team that will give him a car good enough to compete. He eventually signs with Hesketh.

You might think that a movie about car racing would be full of action, but director Ron Howard spends more time off the track than on it. He develops the plot by showing us the contrast between Hunt and Lauda. As well as character differences, they came from very different backgrounds. Hunt's family was rich and prepared to buy him a place on a team, but Lauda was disowned by his father after choosing racing over a more traditional career. We see Lauda succeeding on his own merit rather than being handed anything. While Hunt pursues any attractive woman who will spend the night with him, Lauda chooses a supportive woman who ended up being married to him until 1991.

Formula One racing is a glamorous sport. In 2013, two drivers earned $27 million in salary alone. Sponsorship deals would vastly increase that sum. If you have ever watched a race, you'll have seen the celebrities in attendance, as well as a horde of beautiful women. The movie speculates that women like racing drivers because they are so close to death, and that makes them more alive than other men. It also helps that they are incredibly rich. An early voice-over informs us that of the 25 drivers in Formula One, two will probably die by the end of the season. Although that was true at the time, safety has improved enormously since the 1970s.

Will the movie work for you if you know nothing about Formula One? I grew up following the sport and still watch every race today. I have no interest in any other type of car racing. It's hard for me to imagine watching the movie without the knowledge I have gained over a lifetime, but I would think that the story has plenty to offer those who know nothing about the sport. It should work if you enjoy character studies. As for the acting, many think that Brühl should have received an Oscar nomination, while I have never seen Hemsworth deliver a better performance. The story is interesting and quite gripping. It felt as if only an hour had passed by the time that the credits rolled.

Writer Peter Morgan has given us some great stories set in the 1970s. He teamed up with Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon, which received international acclaim, while Tom Hooper's The Damned United does an excellent job of portraying English soccer.

If you are curious about seeing the film for the racing sequences, you might be disappointed. I would estimate that around 30 minutes is devoted to the actual races. Those sequences are done very well, and really give you an idea of what it might be like to drive a Formula One car. Howard also shows the dangers involved, and how a serious accident can occur in a split second. But there is a lot more to this movie than action sequences.

The Blu-ray delivers a spectacular presentation. Colors are vibrant, features are clear, and the audio is excellent when it needs to be. With ten deleted scenes and just over an hour of special features in total, the package offers plenty of insight into the making of the movie and Formula One in general.

Rated R for sexual content, nudity, language, some disturbing images and brief drug use.

Overall score 4/5

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

There are so many films that I need to check out, and this was one of them. My tastes didn't really evolve until about 8 years ago, so I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm surrounded by people who fall into the thrill-seeking blockbuster audience group, so I only get to watch movies that reach me on an emotional level when I am alone. That's probably why I write about them. Hoffman was at his best in Kramer vs. Kramer. Maybe because he was going through a similar thing in his own life at the time?

Mine didn't really evolve until around the first year I got into Blu-ray, so that would be about 5 years ago. I still love action movies, but I also watch movies I never thought I would have before. I used to primarily just watch whatever my parents did, although I didn't watch all that they did either since I wasn't quite into movies as I am now. Obviously Kramer vs. Kramer was one that I skipped.

Not sure. I actually didn't know he was going through something similar himself. Either way, it was a fantastic performance in a fantastic movie.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Mine didn't really evolve until around the first year I got into Blu-ray, so that would be about 5 years ago. I still love action movies, but I also watch movies I never thought I would have before. I used to primarily just watch whatever my parents did, although I didn't watch all that they did either since I wasn't quite into movies as I am now. Obviously Kramer vs. Kramer was one that I skipped.

Not sure. I actually didn't know he was going through something similar himself. Either way, it was a fantastic performance in a fantastic movie.

Yeah, I had bought 200 DVDs in my life. Now I've added almost 750 Blu-rays in 5 years.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Yeah, I had bought 200 DVDs in my life. Now I've added almost 750 Blu-rays in 5 years.

Before Blu-ray, I had bought maybe 30 DVDs if you count concerts. Now I own over 800 Blu-rays. I think I win as far as turnarounds go.

I need to see Rush. I don't plan on blind buying it, but a rental is definite.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

I need to see Rush. I don't plan on blind buying it, but a rental is definite.

I'm glad I finally saw it. I guess Ender's Game is the next big release I have pre-ordered, then I'll consider paying full price for Gravity.

[Spirit Zero]

Escape from Planet Earth (2013)

Here's me thinking I missed the latest Snake Plissken adventure from John Carpenter, but actually I didn't miss much at all. I hadn't even heard of this film before, I merely stumbled across the poster one day and it looked quite cool, the title was the eye catcher though, love that.

Problem is the films title doesn't really sum up the films plot all too well. A couple of aliens get caught on Earth by some evil military geezer and are held captive in an Area 51 type area...oh wait it is Area 51. There, alongside other captured aliens, they are forced to build this big death ray laser gun thing to destroy planets. Why? because the evil human military leader is evil and wants to...plus the Roswell aliens killed his dad in the infamous Roswell crash. Clever huh? no not really you're right.

So as you may have already guessed this CGI animated film contains almost every cliched cheesy cornball sci-fi in-joke and visual gag you can imagine. The entire film is completely pointless in the fact that the whole thing has been done time and time again and there really is no need for this to exist. The main alien characters just look dull, completely dull and lifeless blue cliched aliens. All the alien sidekicks they meet up with are your bog standard array of yet more cliches...a slimy alien, a big strong angry alien and a cute little furry alien, all bases covered.

I guess the real crime here (lame plot and character design aside) is the really really average CGI animation. The backgrounds, skies, spacescapes and landscapes all look nice, nothing to blow your eyes from their sockets but they are nice. But in general most of the locations/settings, all the characters, the equipment on display and alien planet terrain/city all look pretty damn generic and bland. Lets just call it planet bland with lots of interstellar alien logos, yep the aliens in this have their own TV stations, sponsors, adverts etc...just like us! its all very crap.

The voice cast doesn't boost your moral put it that way, you know to be weary when Brendan Fraser gets the lead role lets be honest. The story is weak and pointless, the visuals are bright and colourful but sorely lacking quality, few laughs to be had, drab characters and rather limp action sequences. This really is a poor man's 'Monsters vs Aliens' in every sense, feels more like a glossy kids cartoon for a dreary rainy Saturday afternoon.

Considering this is all about aliens and space adventure its virtually grounded on Earth for the whole run time, not much escaping going on anywhere.

3/10

[Lepidopterous]

Not sure how I feel about this...

Rupert Sanders to direct Hollywood remake of Ghost in the Shell

Steven Spielberg's Dreamworks are set to remake the seminal Japanese anime as a live-action English-language movie.

Hollywood's plan for a live action English-language remake of seminal Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell has moved a step closer to reality after Snow White and the Huntsman's Rupert Sanders was hired to direct.
Steven Spielberg, a long-term fan of Mamoru Oshii's 1995 film, bought the rights to remake the 1989 manga comic upon which it is based in April 2009. However, his planned 3D movie failed to make it to the production stage. Spielberg's Dreamworks studio will oversee the revived project, which is based on a new screenplay by The Reluctant Fundamentalist's William Wheeler.
The Ghost in the Shell comic book series follows cyborg detective Major Motoko Kusanagi, team leader of a futuristic Japanese counterterrorism organisation focused on cyber-crime. Three anime films (one made-for-TV) have been based on the comic, of which the 1995 Ghost in the Shell was the first, as well as an animated Japanese TV series and three video games. However, the new version will be the first English language, Hollywood-produced take.
Cinemagoers who are not au fait with Oshii's film may still find many of its themes and tropes highly familiar. With its vision of a vast electronic network to which every human being can connect, Ghost in the Shell has been credited with influencing Hollywood movies such as The Matrix. The flow of inspiration runs both ways, of course: with its depiction of a part-human, part-machine detective who questions her identity, the original manga echoes the themes of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

Hollywood has a troubled history when it comes to anime remakes. Warner Brothers' plans for a live action take on 1988 cyberpunk classic Akira are currently mired in development hell. The studio had at one point reportedly planned a version starring High School Musical's Zac Efron and Twilight's Robert Pattinson in the key roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo.
Sanders, the British commercials director who made his feature film debut on 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman, has a number of high-profile projects on his slate. He is tipped to direct a biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte, a futuristic romance titled Juliet and an adaptation of the Frederick Forsyth thriller novel The Kill List, not to be confused with Ben Wheatley's accalimed 2011 occult horror Kill List.

Link

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Not sure how I feel about this...

Link

Wow. Never saw that coming.

I just read the original manga a year ago, so my appreciation of the anime film and series has grown. The biggest thing that concerns me is that a Hollywood remake could be too watered-down; I don't think they'd bother to take any risks in making it as pulpy or mature, and I could see them toning it down for a kid's audience. I won't be having any high expectations for this.