The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Steve46

There a plenty of good or great films which just don't do it for me. Lots of blockbusters with mass appeal that I can't get into either.

It will only cost me my time to find out whether I like Army of Shadows. I bought 11 films in the current Criterion sale and ruled it out for some reason.

Which films did you buy?

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

The bolded paragraph is somewhat ignorant. A blind-buy of a Criterion is as much of a risk as a blind-buy of anything.

i don't agree with that statement at all. i think most modern films, or films you at least see previews of, or hear about, tend to let you in on what you're getting into. if i blind buy TRON: Legacy, i have a basic idea of what to expect - visually stunning, but story will be lackluster maybe, at least not award worthy or memorable. but if i blind buy... The Red Shoes. i have no effin' idea what that is about. i'm assuming it's not about shoes, so thus, going in "more blind" for Criterions tends to happen with some people.

The studio is notorious for making unexpected additions? How so? That's not the case at all, as they generally release films many people expect them to release at some point. When they deviate, it's a deviation into the catalogue of one of their favorite directors (like Malle with Black Moon). Their films are also not unknown to the common film fan, as most of their catalogue includes the most famous and acclaimed films of all-time. Their unknown to those that limit themselves to modern films.

i don't think it has anything to do with limiting yourself, there are a lot of factors that go into it. no one in i actually know has ever even heard of "The Criterion Collection", what it is, what it means, or anything else. i've spent years looking up and researching films online and probably about half of what is in the Criterion collection i never heard of or stumbled upon in any way. so if no one you know knows of something, and you don't stumble upon it in some other way, that's not purposefully limiting yourself to "modern films" (which i think is kind of an arrogant statement), it's just how it goes.

and spend a few moments to read over some pages in the Criterion thread on here. any of them. none in particular. that's what my paragraph was referring to. people squacking left and right over what's released, never hearing of it, disliking it, and everything else under the sun.

Giving it a 1.5 when you yourself admit that the pieces are well-done is very strange indeed. Even if I don't like a film, if its pieces are very good (i.e. acting, directing, cinematography), it at least warrants a
respectable score.

i'm not gonna give it a respectable score just based on individual merit. that would be a lie. if i wrote my review and then ended it with a 3.5/5 or a 4/5, would have made sense? no. it would have sent the wrong message, it would have shown that i liked it, when in fact i didn't not. i don't feel it deserved a respectable score, and i explained my reasoning why. it's certainly not horrible, or A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) level of bad, but if i didn't like it, i'm not gonna raise the score because individual pieces are good. i'll mention it, but that's it.

The pace is slow because it's realistic and it's not a Michael Bay film. Apocalypse Now and Army of Shadows actually share A LOT of the same qualities. Both are deliberately paced and aim to show conflicted individuals.

i wasn't anticipating a Michael Bay film.

they are a lot alike, but Apocalypse Now is a great film, and Army of Shadows, for me, is not. they aren't even in the same category. evidenced by how long it took me to watch the damn thing, while Apocalypse Now i watched three times in two days when i first got it.

Not liking the film is perfectly fine. But making general statements like the bolded is a bit too much.

i wasn't saying it was fact. it's an opinion.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Which films did you buy?

Actually, it was 12

I picked up:

America Lost and Found: The BBS Story
Head / Easy Rider / Five Easy Pieces / Drive, He Said / A Safe Place / The Last Picture Show / The King of Marvin Gardens

Le Cercle Rouge
Au revoir les Enfants
Blow Out
Kes
Broadcast News

Already owned:

The 400 Blows
Bottle Rocket
Charade
Chungking Express
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Double Life of Veronique
El Norte
For All Mankind
The Man Who Fell to Earth
Mystery Train
Paris, Texas
Paths of Glory
Playtime
Revanche
Summer Hours
The Third Man
Walkabout
Wings of Desire

Antichrist (UK version)

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Great collection! Have you seen those films before (I think you saw Au Revoir?) I have Blow Out at home right now, but haven't seen it. Broadcast News I'm indifferent about but feel I need to revisit. Kes I've heard wonderful things about.

My Criterions are organized when you click on my collection. During the sale, I ordered the following (all blind-buys, which for me poses very little risk):

Le Cercle Rouge (I love Le Samourai and Army of Shadows)
Kes (I love films about childhood)
Still Walking (I love films about family)
Fish Tank (I love coming of age stories)

Au revoir and Broadcast News I knew about after watching the DVDs from my local library. The other 10 were blind buys. I like Jack Nicholson and want to see some of his early work. Three of the seven BBS films are in Ebert's great movies. I often agree with his views.

I have watched Kes and Blow Out since buying them. Love them both. The reviews are in this thread and on the blog in my signature. Probably best to go in without reading anything though.

I would like to see Still Walking.

I seem to own 83 of the 155 listed in your collection and 53 on your wishlist.

[dag]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Actually, it was 12

I picked up:

America Lost and Found: The BBS Story
Head / Easy Rider / Five Easy Pieces / Drive, He Said / A Safe Place / The Last Picture Show / The King of Marvin Gardens

Le Cercle Rouge
Au revoir les Enfants
Blow Out
Kes
Broadcast News

You're Canadian? Despite our dollar now being worth more than the US dollar, what's it like importing these discs? You get seriously dinged with shipping, and I wonder about customs.

I rent discs from Zip.ca, which appears to be suffering serious financial woes. Today I went to a video store and rented the BD America Lost and Found set. I've already watched Head and Easy Rider, and will watch a movie a night for the rest of the week.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by dag

You're Canadian? Despite our dollar now being worth more than the US dollar, what's it like importing these discs? You get seriously dinged with shipping, and I wonder about customs.

I rent discs from Zip.ca, which appears to be suffering serious financial woes. Today I went to a video store and rented the BD America Lost and Found set. I've already watched Head and Easy Rider, and will watch a movie a night for the rest of the week.

Shipping is $4.99 per order plus $2.99 per item.

Duty is around 12% and is included in the price.

I bought four Criterions and Tell No One and the total was $119.15. Shipping and the import deposit came to $28.88 of that total.

[Al_The_Strange]

Okay, here’s the real review...though, this is totally out of place in the middle of a Criterion discussion...

Next greatest random selection: “Swordfish.”

Back in 1999, Joel Silver helped bring “The Matrix” into being, granting us with a cool (if not overly-romanticized) view of the world of computer hacking. A few years later, Silver produced this nice little action flick. Ever since then, I’ve always felt that “Swordfish” was simply riding on the waves of “The Matrix’s” success. Not only do they share the same producer, but they’re also high-tech thrillers with far-out action scenes and special effects. At its very worst, “Swordfish” might come off as a cheap “Matrix” rip-off.

But the movie does have its bright moments. Aside from the slick style and entertaining action, the story does have some clever twists and ideas, defying most conventions of action films. Characters are adequately developed, although I find it hard to relate to them (even with the whole melodrama involving Stan and his daughter).

For the most part though, this is a movie that tries to pull a fast one on the audience. Travolta’s speech at the very beginning pretty much says it all; he says straight up that most Hollywood flicks suck, and we need a film that defies morality and allows the villain to win. At times, it feels like the film is aware of itself, and is nothing more than an illusion to trick the audience. It kinda works, but nowhere near the same level as “The Prestige” or anything. The most critical viewers might call this pretentious.

For the most part though, it’s more about style. And the style is phenomenal, with plenty of pleasing photography and a really groovy color scheme. Acting is okay; it might be a little hard to take John Travolta seriously as the villain, but he is pretty cool imo. Hugh Jackman is decent as the protagonist, Halle Barry is very appealing, Don Cheadle is average in his role, and Vinnie Jones makes an appearance as one cool thug. Writing shows some bright spots, and is okay overall. Production value is quite high, with plenty of slick sets, props, and costumes. Music is really cool; the score’s kinda weird with the jazzy stuff, but Paul Oakenfold’s techno totally rocks.

On the very first viewing, I actually didn’t care for this film. It didn’t really make sense to me back then. But on repeat viewings, I like it.

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: As a rental.

This Blu-Ray looks darn near perfect. There is perhaps a slight touch of DNR and EE used, but it’s barely a problem; the film shows phenomenal detail, even with facial details. It’s super-clean, super-sharp, and very pleasing to watch. Sound quality is not HD, so some effects lack the proper punch. And, it is a little lower in volume than usual. But, the soundtrack is clean, clear, and has a few surprisingly strong parts.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5



I actually wonder how this film would turn out if Christopher Nolan directed it...

[Foggy]

I'll be watching The Kings Speech later as I got it on Blu, but it's pretty stupid that the UK Blu is in 1080i

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I'll be watching The Kings Speech later as I got it on Blu, but it's pretty stupid that the UK Blu is in 1080i

PQ wasn't great here, but that's just plain wrong.

[Steve46]

Interview with James Franco on Charlie Rose.

Pretty interesting. He mentions 127 Hours from 33 minutes to 38 minutes if that's your main interest.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

PQ wasn't great here, but that's just plain wrong.

Yeah, Momentum really cut corners on it I'm not all that bothered, I'd live with the down resolution.

It's coming increasingly popular though with Studios to bring UK Blus down. Buried had a aspect ratio problem, which I still avoiding buying until it's cheap enough.

Hopefully, when I get Black Swan next week, it won't have any shocking problems. The Apocalypse Now UK set coming out next week month is looking very impressive however though, maybe even better than the US one A lot of good blus coming out next month Luckily it is also Worldwide Foggy Day next month as well

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Yeah, Momentum really cut corners on it I'm not all that bothered, I'd live with the down resolution.

It's coming increasingly popular though with Studios to bring UK Blus down. Buried had a aspect ratio problem, which I still avoiding buying until it's cheap enough.

Hopefully, when I get Black Swan next week, it won't have any shocking problems. The Apocalypse Now UK set coming out next week month is looking very impressive however though, maybe even better than the US one A lot of good blus coming out next month Luckily it is also Worldwide Foggy Day next month as well

Is it? What day?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Jezza

Is it? What day?

3rd June

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Okay, here’s the real review...though, this is totally out of place in the middle of a Criterion discussion...

Next greatest random selection: “Swordfish.”

Back in 1999, Joel Silver helped bring “The Matrix” into being, granting us with a cool (if not overly-romanticized) view of the world of computer hacking. A few years later, Silver produced this nice little action flick. Ever since then, I’ve always felt that “Swordfish” was simply riding on the waves of “The Matrix’s” success. Not only do they share the same producer, but they’re also high-tech thrillers with far-out action scenes and special effects. At its very worst, “Swordfish” might come off as a cheap “Matrix” rip-off.

But the movie does have its bright moments. Aside from the slick style and entertaining action, the story does have some clever twists and ideas, defying most conventions of action films. Characters are adequately developed, although I find it hard to relate to them (even with the whole melodrama involving Stan and his daughter).

For the most part though, this is a movie that tries to pull a fast one on the audience. Travolta’s speech at the very beginning pretty much says it all; he says straight up that most Hollywood flicks suck, and we need a film that defies morality and allows the villain to win. At times, it feels like the film is aware of itself, and is nothing more than an illusion to trick the audience. It kinda works, but nowhere near the same level as “The Prestige” or anything. The most critical viewers might call this pretentious.

For the most part though, it’s more about style. And the style is phenomenal, with plenty of pleasing photography and a really groovy color scheme. Acting is okay; it might be a little hard to take John Travolta seriously as the villain, but he is pretty cool imo. Hugh Jackman is decent as the protagonist, Halle Barry is very appealing, Don Cheadle is average in his role, and Vinnie Jones makes an appearance as one cool thug. Writing shows some bright spots, and is okay overall. Production value is quite high, with plenty of slick sets, props, and costumes. Music is really cool; the score’s kinda weird with the jazzy stuff, but Paul Oakenfold’s techno totally rocks.

On the very first viewing, I actually didn’t care for this film. It didn’t really make sense to me back then. But on repeat viewings, I like it.

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: As a rental.

This Blu-Ray looks darn near perfect. There is perhaps a slight touch of DNR and EE used, but it’s barely a problem; the film shows phenomenal detail, even with facial details. It’s super-clean, super-sharp, and very pleasing to watch. Sound quality is not HD, so some effects lack the proper punch. And, it is a little lower in volume than usual. But, the soundtrack is clean, clear, and has a few surprisingly strong parts.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5



I actually wonder how this film would turn out if Christopher Nolan directed it...

The scene where Jackman is "bopping" along to the music while he is "Jamming" on the computers killed me. It was like a cheesey dance number gone wrong. Very wrong.

[Pondosinatra]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

3 out of 5

Director - Michael Apted

Stars - Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, Will Poulter, Tilda Swinton

First a disclaimer: I absolutely love the Narnia set of books. As a little kid they were literally magical to me. In fact at one point my imaginary friend was Aslan - sad but true. Voyage is the third film in the series (although not the third book) and it almost didn't get made. Disney backed out of financing the project at the last minute and it was delayed for over a year before Fox stepped in. It's a good thing they did because I rather enjoyed it. Lucy (Henley) and Edmund (Keynes) along with their annoying cousin Eustace (Poulter) are drawn back into Narnia through an old painting of a ship on the high seas. They are rescued at sea by none other than Prince Caspian (Barnes) and together they sail into the unknown in a quest to find out what happened to seven exiled Lords. Overall this had mixed reviews. But most of the bad reviews all dwelled upon the story. Apparently they didn't realize these movies are based on the books and for the most part follow the story faithfully. I think they did a great job and I found myself enjoying remembering parts I had previously forgotten. The other knock is that to save money this was filmed on digital instead of film. Personally, outside of one scene in a town that had a painfully obvious CGI backdrop, I thought it looked stunning. The Silver Chair has already been green lighted and I can't wait to rediscover this wonderful world again.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

3 out of 5

Director - Michael Apted

Stars - Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, Will Poulter, Tilda Swinton

First a disclaimer: I absolutely love the Narnia set of books. As a little kid they were literally magical to me. In fact at one point my imaginary friend was Aslan - sad but true. Voyage is the third film in the series (although not the third book) and it almost didn't get made. Disney backed out of financing the project at the last minute and it was delayed for over a year before Fox stepped in. It's a good thing they did because I rather enjoyed it. Lucy (Henley) and Edmund (Keynes) along with their annoying cousin Eustace (Poulter) are drawn back into Narnia through an old painting of a ship on the high seas. They are rescued at sea by none other than Prince Caspian (Barnes) and together they sail into the unknown in a quest to find out what happened to seven exiled Lords. Overall this had mixed reviews. But most of the bad reviews all dwelled upon the story. Apparently they didn't realize these movies are based on the books and for the most part follow the story faithfully. I think they did a great job and I found myself enjoying remembering parts I had previously forgotten. The other knock is that to save money this was filmed on digital instead of film. Personally, outside of one scene in a town that had a painfully obvious CGI backdrop, I thought it looked stunning. The Silver Chair has already been green lighted and I can't wait to rediscover this wonderful world again.

I loved the first one, thought the second was OK, and was disappointed by Dawn Treader. I gave it 3/5, but hoped for more.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The scene where Jackman is "bopping" along to the music while he is "Jamming" on the computers killed me. It was like a cheesey dance number gone wrong. Very wrong.

I thought it was kinda funny how, during that whole scene, he tried to build his "worm" as if it was some kind of video game. He'd get all excited when the little cubes came into place. He'd get upset and curse when they fell apart. What is this, 3-D Tetris?! I wish all programming was this fun!

[Al_The_Strange]

Now it’s my turn…

Next greatest blind-buy: “L'armée des Ombres,” aka “Army of Shadows.”

The thing about Criterion movies is that they’re artistically-driven, not entertainment-driven. If movies could be compared to music, most blockbusters are analogous to radio pop and rock tunes; Criterion movies are like classical music. So naturally, going from one to the other can be rather trying.

“Army of Shadows” definitely tests the patience; it is quite long and very slowly paced. It is loaded with scenes that are silent and filled with blank space. For the first half or so, I found myself rather bored, not caring for the characters or story; I didn’t have a good grasp of the plot during that time either, as I didn’t know (or care) about what the characters’ goals or mission was.

By the last hour or so, the mission became more clear-cut, the goals were defined, and I finally cared about it much more. It’s still a slow-moving act, but it is inherently interesting watching the gang trying to break into a Nazi compound, escape persecution, and eventually face some harsh moral dilemmas.

The film’s greatest strength, however, is not so much in the story, as it is in the portrayal of life in the Resistance movement. Coming from a book that chronicled the French Resistance, and a director who had experienced the Resistance, the film just seeps with heavy gritty realism. What little action the movie has is sudden, brief, and unnerving, just as it would be in real life. All scenes involving infiltration are pretty suspenseful. And in between, the movie showcases the Resistance in a realistic light. It’s not glamorous or easy at all, it’s bleak. It probably will never be any more realistic than this in cinema.

The film has lovely photography; it’s very still and solid, with an appropriately drab color scheme and loads of genuine locales. Acting didn’t really thrill me; all of the characters struck me as being stiff and dull, and contributed to my apathy towards them. Perhaps this is appropriate for this film, but I found them far less distinctive this way. Writing is not bad though. Production value shows a few fake-looking special-effects, but is otherwise decent. Music is good.

3/5 (entertainment: 2.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: People with a deep passion for the French Resistance will probably find this invoking. Otherwise, I can only recommend it as a rental.

The Blu-Ray is great; it’s so clean, clear, and sharp that it looks like it could have been made yesterday. There are just a few soft-looking shots, but most of it is very detailed. Color and contrast are very dark and drab, but I’d chalk it up to artistic intent. Sound quality is clean and clear.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

[Marcus Wright]

The War Of The Roses

Direector - Deni De Vito
Stars - Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, Deni De Vito




One of the few movies that really tackle the idea of marrige gone wrong.
This movie is phenomenal in the way it describes the natural evolvment of the relationship between Mr. and Ms. Rose.

No surprise its directed by Deni De Vito, who also stars as the lawyer in that movie. Brilliant. Bravo.
One of my all time favorite movies. There is a lesson to be learned from this movie by everyone.

5/5

[Foggy]

The Kings Speech

Now, Blind-Buys are something I am dead against, I think there are about 5-8 blind buys in my collection, including this, and most of them are mediocre. So why did I blind buy this, easy, it won Best Picture and I did want to see it, although, a lot of those blind buys where films I was interested in as well.

However, unlike most the blind buys, of course, I liked this film.

Lavish in set design and beautiful caught on camera, although ruined by the transfer (more on that later). It's hard not to say that The King's Speech, against films like Inception and Toy Story 3, is a great film to look at. I'd almost go as far as to say it's a lovely background film to have on. Like, I dunno, I had a few friends around for a bit of a house party, and for god knows why, they though, "you know what would be awesome, let's put The King's Speech on". I walked in somewhere in the middle of it and saw them watching it, I'd do two things, 1) Look at them and go "The fu--, why are you guys watching Kings Speech, are you going to do a double bill with The Seventh Seal" and then 2) look at the screen and go, wow, they really put a lot of effort into making this film look and feel the way it does

Obviously, saying that, the script, acting and direction must be a good as well. Well of course, Acting goes without say, Colin Firth nails it, although I torn between him and James Franco, but it was Firth's time for the award, Franco has many more attempts ahead of him. All acting is great however, every character is demanding and does there best to complement Firth.

I was shocked by how much I really loved the script, and how I was getting very invested into the characters dilemma. And of course, although not much of a fan of the genre, the period drama, feel good, cheese is dang nice

But, I did say I liked the film, not loved. So somewhere along the line there must be something I didn't like.

Well, this is rather strange, I was watching it, and I thought to myself "Wow, this is really moving along quickly, we must be something close to an hour by now by the way the story is already unfolding" and then Guy Pierce turns up, and I continue watching for something that feels like 30-40 mins, and I'm suddenly go "Wait, somethings not right, we can't be near the end, he's not even King yet" I check how long I've been watching and it's been something like 1 hour 15 mins. Now I know I said I liked the film a lot, and the film did pick up the pace after that, but that middle act is very slow. Although this may be due to my mind on other things at the moment like Exams and Theater Performances, so it may be because of this.

I also would of liked to see some more civilians within the film, and I'm not a huge fan of British films just being very royal and posh, but, because of the subject matter I'll let it go. One of the things I liked about Dead Man's Shoes a few pages back that I didn't mention was it's very unglamorous on it's portrayal of British Society. (And one of the reasons I recommend it to you guys very strongly)

Other than that, I really liked The Kings Speech!

9/10

PQ - Always fine in standard shots, but with movement (especially with tracking shots, used frequently in the film) the focus and detail is lost, and makes the film look a lot worse. 1080i sucks - 5.5/10

AQ - Had no problem with it, nothing special though - 7/10

Overall Score - 7.5/10