The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

those at the end are not generally part of the actual film, they are an extension, but not something that relates to the film you just saw. like, in A Bug's Life for the outtakes. yes, something is happening, but it doesn't affect what we just saw in the film. and most of the hidden scenes at the end of films while being connected, don't logically belong or don't really have an impact on the film you just watched.

POtC 3: yes, because it dealt with these characters.
Iron Man 2: not really because while same "universe" (get it? ), completely different character.

so PotC 3 could have an additional minute added on. Iron Man 2, no.

i get it. you and Squid are far too NSE to follow basic logic. it's okay. you're still welcome here with your clubs and bludgeoning of your meals and eating with your hands. and the whole not showering thing.

What does that matter? Its a part of the entertainment package that was designed AS SUCH by the makers and delivered as a whole.

The opening credits/song in James Bond flicks have nothing to do with the story, its just art for entertainment, but you wouldnt deduct that would you?

Oh, and do you hold your utensils with your feet? I thought so.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Here's my Top 5 dramas:

[Show spoiler]
5. American Beauty
Directed by Sam Mendes
Starring Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening and Thora Birch

American Beauty is the story of how Lester Burnham (Spacey) rebels against his boring lifestyle and acts to change it. He’s unhappy with his wife, Carolyn (Bening), while his daughter, Jane (Birch), barely acknowledges his existence. Mendes explores the difference between the image we present to other people and what actually goes on behind the scenes. There’s plenty of dark humor and this might just be Spacey’s best role. All three people make big changes and develop as characters throughout the film. It expresses feelings that a lot of people feel, but never do anything about.
My full review can be found here.

4. The Green Mile
Directed by Frank Darabont
Starring Tom Hanks, Michael Clarke Duncan and David Morse
The best Stephen King adaptations are directed by Frank Darabont. The Green Mile is set in a prison in the 1930s and all of the inmates are waiting to be executed in the electric chair. It’s not a traditional prison story as all of the prisoners have their own cell and don’t come into contact with each other. The warders, led by Paul Edgcombe, have their world turned upside down when John Coffey (Duncan) arrives on the scene. Edgcombe, now an old man, narrates the story and everything we see happened when he was a young man. Coffey is a giant of a man, but exceptional quiet and gentle. I won’t reveal how he shakes things up because it would ruin the surprise. It’s a wonderful drama and Darabont takes his time telling the story. Don’t be put off by the 189-minute running time because you’ll probably be sorry that it’s over when it ends. It also has the best performance by a mouse in the history of motion pictures.

3. Pulp Fiction
Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis
Reservoir Dogs was a promising debut and Pulp Fiction sees Tarantino take a step forward. His screenplay deservedly won the Oscar and it’s full of the realistic dialogue that’s found in all of his films. Vincent Vega (Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Jackson) play two killers. The most interesting thing about them is their conversations and outlook on life. Bruce Willis is also in the mix, playing a boxer who is paid to fix a fight and goes on the run after failing to keep his promise. The film is full of interesting characters. Christopher Walken appears in just one scene, but you’ll never forget it. Uma Thurman hinted at the potential she would eventually realize in the Kill Bill movies. The non-linear plot is a sequence of bizarre events rather than a coherent story, but I wouldn’t change a thing. It’s hard to pick a favourite Tarantino movie, but this currently has the edge.

2. The Shawshank Redemption
Directed by Frank Darabont
Starring Morgan Freeman, Tim Robbins and Bob Gunton

Shawshank is another Stephen King story adapted by Frank Darabont and it’s also set in a prison. Andy Dufresne (Robbins) plays a man convicted of murdering his wife. Red (Freeman) befriends him and helps him adjust to prison life. The film has been criticized by some for manipulating our feelings, but don’t all movies aim do that? The pacing is slow, allowing us to feel the passage of time as Dufresne serves his long sentence. My favourite scene happens while several inmates are tarring a roof, but the film is full of memorable scenes. I doubt that Robbins or Freeman have ever delivered better performances. As with most Stephen King stories, there’s a real sense of justice by the conclusion. I’m not sure how many times I have seen Shawshank, but I know I’ll keep watching it on a regular basis.

1. Mulholland Dr.
Directed by David Lynch
Starring Naomi Watts. Laura Harring and Justin Theroux
David Lynch isn’t the easiest filmmaker to like. He doesn’t like explaining the meaning of anything and insists that you draw your own conclusions. Mulholland Dr. is particularly baffling on the first viewing. It’s unclear what’s happening and the whole film is turned on its head in the last 45 minutes. It makes the viewer question the validity of everything that has happened up to that point. Betty (Watts) plays a bright-eyed aspiring actress who befriends Rita (Harring); a woman suffering from amnesia following a car accident. Part of the story plays like a Nancy Drew mystery as the two try to find Rita’s true identity. In fact, the whole film is about identity. There’s an air of mystery throughout and numerous scenes filled with dark humor. It’s also actually quite frightening in places if you allow yourself to be drawn in. If it works for you, you’ll find yourself reading about the film and watching it again within a couple of days. If it fails, you’ll regret ever seeing it. I watched it two days running and have seen it many times since. This is the film that changed the way I think about cinema.

Fantastic list! I like a lot of those films!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

those at the end are not generally part of the actual film, they are an extension, but not something that relates to the film you just saw. like, in A Bug's Life for the outtakes. yes, something is happening, but it doesn't affect what we just saw in the film. and most of the hidden scenes at the end of films while being connected, don't logically belong or don't really have an impact on the film you just watched.

POtC 3: yes, because it dealt with these characters.
Iron Man 2: not really because while same "universe" (get it? ), completely different character.

so PotC 3 could have an additional minute added on. Iron Man 2, no.

i get it. you and Squid are far too NSE to follow basic logic. it's okay. you're still welcome here with your clubs and bludgeoning of your meals and eating with your hands. and the whole not showering thing.

All of that is irrelevant, as you established the rules that govern being included for the opening credits and that only SOME of them contain things beyond just words. Thus, regardless of the content, they count by your standards. Same goes for end credits. You cannot be selectively accepting.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What does that matter? Its a part of the entertainment package that was designed AS SUCH by the makers and delivered as a whole.

The opening credits/song in James Bond flicks have nothing to do with the story, its just art for entertainment, but you wouldnt deduct that would you?

Oh, and do you hold your utensils with your feet? I thought so.

Face it bearcat, you are up against two superior beings. You can't compete with a babysitting Navy SEAL and a marionette with 10 appendages.

[Show spoiler]

Oh and...

[Show spoiler]Wow, how bored are we that this conversation has continued on for so many posts?

Edit: Al's new avatar is pure WIN.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Fantastic list! I like a lot of those films!

Thanks, it was fun. Hard though.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Face it bearcat, you are up against two superior beings. You can't compete with a babysitting Navy SEAL and a marionette with 10 appendages.

[Show spoiler]

Oh and...

[Show spoiler]Wow, how bored are we that this conversation has continued on for so many posts?

definitely!

Edit: Al's new avatar is pure WIN.

definitely

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

All of that is irrelevant, as you established the rules that govern being included for the opening credits and that only SOME of them contain things beyond just words. Thus, regardless of the content, they count by your standards. Same goes for end credits. You cannot be selectively accepting.





Face it bearcat, you are up against two superior beings. You can't compete with a babysitting Navy SEAL and a marionette with 10 appendages.

[Show spoiler]

Oh and...

[Show spoiler]Wow, how bored are we that this conversation has continued on for so many posts?

Edit: Al's new avatar is pure WIN.

I am not sure that his comprehension skills are at a level high enough to allow him grasp this fact.

I agree about Al's new avatar.

[iam1bearcat]

Aliens

134 minutes

Year: 1986
Director: James Cameron
Writer: James Cameron
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, and Paul Reiser

to be completely honest and blunt about it: Aliens is a disgrace. it's a disgrace and an embarrassment to the film before it and everything Ridley Scott created. it's impossibly generic at almost every turn and turns what was once the most frightening creature created, into a mindless, seen all too often standard killing machine.

this review will be a step by step assessment of my thoughts on Aliens and what i feel it does wrong.

CHARACTERS
in the original, the crew of the Nostromo were awesome, unique and fun. within thirty minutes of Aliens i was sighing enough for a week. terrible dialogue. absolutely horrible. generic, cliched characters that are a staple of Cameron's career. and while, maybe in 1986 they were seen as cool and original, they don't hold up. how can a film in 1979 (the original) hold up so well, yet the sequel, some seven years later is a disgrace and slap in the face? easy. awful writing and a bad concept.

oh i get it! they're Marines! they must all be @ssholes who make unfunny sexual innuendos and stuff like that. even the girls are tough as nails and act like guys. because women can't be women right? and aren't we way, way, way in the future? good to know these "Marines" act just like Marines in present day films

ATMOSPHERE
you guys alllllll know for me to love a film it needs atmosphere and Aliens is empty in this department the same metallic, cramped spaces are pretty much all we see. which would be fine, if it had any originality or feeling brought to it. but Cameron doesn't care. another major flaw he has in his career is the lack of atmosphere. even T2, for as great as it is, lack a certain atmosphere of the universe. Avatar, while LOOKING great, lacks an atmosphere. i think the closest he's come in Titanic, but i still never got the feeling of being ON the ship, just watching people on a ship.

anyway, the original had the Nostromo with a very distinct feel. Aliens lacks all that. corridor after corridor, explosion after explosion, $h*tty dialogue after $h*tty dialogue... it never ends.

OVER EXPOSURE OF THE ALIENS
not to beat a dead horse, but the original played the lighting game and screen time of the alien perfectly. it left you guessing, it left you interested. and while i understand some would have complained about not knowing what exactly it was yet, if Cameron hadn't showed us, he didn't need to show us SO EFFIN' MUCH! constantly. hundreds upon hundreds of Aliens are shown, and shown all too much. the mystique is long gone by the 90 minute mark. as is the intimidation of the creature, which leads to...

DUMBING DOWN THE ALIENS
i get it. Cameron isn't smart at writing dialogue for characters, nor is he smart for using classic, iconic characters correctly. he took something that was powerful, quick, vicious, incredibly smart and a HUNTER and turned it into a slimy Marine that just couldn't talk or have a gun. as Ripley even says, "it wiped out my entire crew in less than 24 hours". yet, this rag-tag team of doofuses somehow kill alien after alien? and i like how their acid blood (or whatever technical term fans have created for it) doesn't come into play until 90 minutes. and at the end when Ripley is

[Show spoiler]shooting the Queen and the eggs

that should have been a massacre of the ship and ground. yet... nothing

i understand there are guns and these are Marines, not a mining crew, but come on. the first film showed a powerful creature. just ONE. who caused serious problems. this time there are hundreds and yet, there really isn't much of a problem for awhile.

THE FINAL FIGHT
ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. such a let down. i cannot tell you how disappointed and underwhelmed i was by this fight against the Queen. it was staged poorly, structured oddly and features some of the goofiest movements and logic i have seen from Ripley and the Queen (and director) yet in the entire film! as great as the Queen looked, this fight was piss poor and summed up the entire movie - something that should have been awesome, and seemed like it would be awesome, but disappointed greatly.

and then, the biggest issue is...

HOW DOES THIS HELP THE FRANCHISE?
nothing that happens in Aliens pushes the story forward or advances Ripley's character. they go back to where the first film takes place, so no new ground is set. we learn there is a Queen... okay... that's it. it felt like Aliens was running in place and doing nothing to push the envelope or the franchise. T2 was an extraordinary step forward. Aliens isn't. sure, it's louder, and bigger, but what the hell does that actually mean in the long run? and does that mean it's a good film? absolutely not. not in my book.

____________________________________

with all that said, i don't hate Aliens, i just have never really liked it. i barely even like it. it's passable in my book, and one of the most disappointing sequels in cinema history (especially when the first film is such a classic). as much as i love the "world" that Ridley has created, Aliens doesn't justify it being there with it.

there's not a whole lot right in Aliens, simply put.

PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 3/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Edit: Al's new avatar is pure WIN.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

definitely

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I agree about Al's new avatar.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Alien [1979 Theatrical Version]

[Show spoiler]
114 minutes

Year: 1979
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Dan O’Bannon
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Yaphet Kotto, and Harry Dean Stanton

not much i can say about such a legendary film that hasn't already been said by someone somewhere and probably stated much better than i ever could. but either way, Alien is something that simply must be seen.

one of the best of the sci-fi and horror genres. the atmosphere and tension are almost unmatched. the execution of pacing is brilliant, the cast and characters are wonderful and wholly unique and of course, the film features of the very best characters to ever be created in the history of cinema. hell, the Alien itself may be #1 on my list (whenever i make such a list) seeing as there is nothing else as unique, mysterious, threatening, dangerous and jaw dropping as it is.

the story - for those who somehow may not know - follows the crew of The Nostromo, who awaken early from hyper sleep because their ship picks up a distress signal. and because it is protocol, they must investigate. they discover a giant, mysterious ship and a more mysterious organism inside.

the rest of the film follows the wonders and subsequent horrors of trying to save one of their crew members, with frightening, bloody good results

one of the most genius things i cannot give praise to enough for the film is the creation of the alien itself and the stages of its life it has. from a facehugger, to the chest burster to the iconic, massively sized fully grown alien, every step of the way is awesome. it's "defense mechanism" is pure genius and adds a whole new level of "well what the f$2! do we do to kill it???" to your worrisome mind. and i love how we still don't technically find out by the time the film ends

of course, the film isn't a typical horror film where we couldn't give a damn about the characters and want them to die (*cough* unlike Aliens *cough*). Alien has a great cast who seem to have real chemistry (can't wait to find out about that in the special features ) and are headlined by the hard nosed, follow the rules no matter what Ripley (Weaver). we instantly get a feel for how serious and "no funny business' she is. she's second in command, but knows what should be done.

the rest of the cast (all with pretty cool names as well) do their part and exceed more than i ever anticipated when i first saw the film years ago. everyone has a purpose and point and everyone has an opinion on something and reacts differently. feels like a real crew on a real ship.

the horror is magnified by the fact that the vessel is a mining vessel. they aren't prepared for battle with enemies, so they have to construct makeshift weapons, which adds to the fear of what's happening. they don't have a single gun to work with! genius!

for the first few viewings i went back and forth on if i liked or understood the purpose of having

[Show spoiler]Ash

be a

[Show spoiler]robot

. always thought that kind of came out of nowhere and was actually goofy for awhile, but over the years have understood it more and i don't mind it all now.

a film that starts slow and slowly builds to a grand ending. a pacing reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey but ends up entirely different. if anyone has played Dead Space, they surely got an Alien feel (especially since the script is very much the same) which means you can fully realize how influential and important the film is - over 30 years later a videogame borrows heavily from a film? outstanding

the film doesn't feel like it was made in 1979. and honestly, aside from the

[Show spoiler]alien "toy" thing smashing into the back of Ripley's escape pod

nothing in the film gives a sense of "oh wow. this is old" which is just amazing given the feel and size of the film (wherein, if the film was dialogue heavy it would be easier to hide it was 1979, but the special effects and magnitude of the film make it harder to keep up to date with effects and visuals, but Alien succeeds).

somewhere in my top 50 favorite films (i should really start that list huh? ) and easily one of my favorite horror films, and sci-fi films.

probably has been watched by all, but if someone has somehow missed this masterpiece, go watch it now duh. it's never looked better!

dozens of iconic scenes and memorable moments fill this gem

PQ: 4.5/5
AQ: 4.5/5

film: 5/5

I used to dislike this first film, but it is great.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Aliens

[Show spoiler]
134 minutes

Year: 1986
Director: James Cameron
Writer: James Cameron
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, and Paul Reiser

to be completely honest and blunt about it: Aliens is a disgrace. it's a disgrace and an embarrassment to the film before it and everything Ridley Scott created. it's impossibly generic at almost every turn and turns what was once the most frightening creature created, into a mindless, seen all too often standard killing machine.

this review will be a step by step assessment of my thoughts on Aliens and what i feel it does wrong.

CHARACTERS
in the original, the crew of the Nostromo were awesome, unique and fun. within thirty minutes of Aliens i was sighing enough for a week. terrible dialogue. absolutely horrible. generic, cliched characters that are a staple of Cameron's career. and while, maybe in 1986 they were seen as cool and original, they don't hold up. how can a film in 1979 (the original) hold up so well, yet the sequel, some seven years later is a disgrace and slap in the face? easy. awful writing and a bad concept.

oh i get it! they're Marines! they must all be @ssholes who make unfunny sexual innuendos and stuff like that. even the girls are tough as nails and act like guys. because women can't be women right? and aren't we way, way, way in the future? good to know these "Marines" act just like Marines in present day films

ATMOSPHERE
you guys alllllll know for me to love a film it needs atmosphere and Aliens is empty in this department the same metallic, cramped spaces are pretty much all we see. which would be fine, if it had any originality or feeling brought to it. but Cameron doesn't care. another major flaw he has in his career is the lack of atmosphere. even T2, for as great as it is, lack a certain atmosphere of the universe. Avatar, while LOOKING great, lacks an atmosphere. i think the closest he's come in Titanic, but i still never got the feeling of being ON the ship, just watching people on a ship.

anyway, the original had the Nostromo with a very distinct feel. Aliens lacks all that. corridor after corridor, explosion after explosion, $h*tty dialogue after $h*tty dialogue... it never ends.

OVER EXPOSURE OF THE ALIENS
not to beat a dead horse, but the original played the lighting game and screen time of the alien perfectly. it left you guessing, it left you interested. and while i understand some would have complained about not knowing what exactly it was yet, if Cameron hadn't showed us, he didn't need to show us SO EFFIN' MUCH! constantly. hundreds upon hundreds of Aliens are shown, and shown all too much. the mystique is long gone by the 90 minute mark. as is the intimidation of the creature, which leads to...

DUMBING DOWN THE ALIENS
i get it. Cameron isn't smart at writing dialogue for characters, nor is he smart for using classic, iconic characters correctly. he took something that was powerful, quick, vicious, incredibly smart and a HUNTER and turned it into a slimy Marine that just couldn't talk or have a gun. as Ripley even says, "it wiped out my entire crew in less than 24 hours". yet, this rag-tag team of doofuses somehow kill alien after alien? and i like how their acid blood (or whatever technical term fans have created for it) doesn't come into play until 90 minutes. and at the end when Ripley is

[Show spoiler]shooting the Queen and the eggs

that should have been a massacre of the ship and ground. yet... nothing

i understand there are guns and these are Marines, not a mining crew, but come on. the first film showed a powerful creature. just ONE. who caused serious problems. this time there are hundreds and yet, there really isn't much of a problem for awhile.

THE FINAL FIGHT
ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. such a let down. i cannot tell you how disappointed and underwhelmed i was by this fight against the Queen. it was staged poorly, structured oddly and features some of the goofiest movements and logic i have seen from Ripley and the Queen (and director) yet in the entire film! as great as the Queen looked, this fight was piss poor and summed up the entire movie - something that should have been awesome, and seemed like it would be awesome, but disappointed greatly.

and then, the biggest issue is...

HOW DOES THIS HELP THE FRANCHISE?
nothing that happens in Aliens pushes the story forward or advances Ripley's character. they go back to where the first film takes place, so no new ground is set. we learn there is a Queen... okay... that's it. it felt like Aliens was running in place and doing nothing to push the envelope or the franchise. T2 was an extraordinary step forward. Aliens isn't. sure, it's louder, and bigger, but what the hell does that actually mean in the long run? and does that mean it's a good film? absolutely not. not in my book.

____________________________________

with all that said, i don't hate Aliens, i just have never really liked it. i barely even like it. it's passable in my book, and one of the most disappointing sequels in cinema history (especially when the first film is such a classic). as much as i love the "world" that Ridley has created, Aliens doesn't justify it being there with it.

there's not a whole lot right in Aliens, simply put.

PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 3/5

At the risk of sounding like an unsophisticated dolt, I gotta disagree with everything here. Most especially the last big paragraph; I've always felt "Aliens" adds a lot to the character and franchise. I love how Ripley toughens up, gains maternal instinct, and becomes a total badass. As far as the story goes, it provides a bridge that discards the old crew and introduces the new one. Above all, it provides a lot more insight on the alien lifecycle, and shows what the heck happened to all those eggs they discovered in the first film. As part of the franchise, it introduces buttloads of tech, weapons, gadgets, concepts, ideas, and insight in the corporate world that would influence the next two sequels and the AvP series.

Ultimately, the thing about it is, "Aliens" is a smashing action movie, but a sucky horror movie, while the first film is the opposite. I'm an action junkie, so the sequel appeals to me more.

Are you going through the whole series? It'll be interesting seeing your scores for #3 and #4...

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I used to dislike this first film, but it is great.



At the risk of sounding like an unsophisticated dolt, I gotta disagree with everything here. Most especially the last big paragraph; I've always felt "Aliens" adds a lot to the character and franchise. I love how Ripley toughens up, gains maternal instinct, and becomes a total badass. As far as the story goes, it provides a bridge that discards the old crew and introduces the new one. Above all, it provides a lot more insight on the alien lifecycle, and shows what the heck happened to all those eggs they discovered in the first film. As part of the franchise, it introduces buttloads of tech, weapons, gadgets, concepts, ideas, and insight in the corporate world that would influence the next two sequels and the AvP series.

Ultimately, the thing about it is, "Aliens" is a smashing action movie, but a sucky horror movie, while the first film is the opposite. I'm an action junkie, so the sequel appeals to me more.

Are you going through the whole series? It'll be interesting seeing your scores for #3 and #4...

I get what you mean and where you're coming from, but it just doesn't work for me. I know a lot of people - A LOT - that say Aliens is better than Alien but not for me. Two very different films so they really shouldn't be compared to begin with, but you know me Al, not a huge action guy. So Aliens isn't my cup of tea. The first one is, thus why I love it.

As for what you said regarding Aliens, maybe it will make more sense and seem to offer more once I see 3 and 4. And yes I am going through the franchise (this one, these 4, not including the AvsP series) I have never seen 3 or Resurrection but of course hear nothing but bad things but we'll see.

Was gonna try and watch them today but was busy and don't have time before Super 8 tonight! so sometime tomorrow will have to do

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

definitely!




definitely

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I am not sure that his comprehension skills are at a level high enough to allow him grasp this fact.

I agree about Al's new avatar.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Aliens

[Show spoiler]134 minutes

Year: 1986
Director: James Cameron
Writer: James Cameron
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton, Carrie Henn, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, and Paul Reiser

to be completely honest and blunt about it: Aliens is a disgrace. it's a disgrace and an embarrassment to the film before it and everything Ridley Scott created. it's impossibly generic at almost every turn and turns what was once the most frightening creature created, into a mindless, seen all too often standard killing machine.

this review will be a step by step assessment of my thoughts on Aliens and what i feel it does wrong.

CHARACTERS
in the original, the crew of the Nostromo were awesome, unique and fun. within thirty minutes of Aliens i was sighing enough for a week. terrible dialogue. absolutely horrible. generic, cliched characters that are a staple of Cameron's career. and while, maybe in 1986 they were seen as cool and original, they don't hold up. how can a film in 1979 (the original) hold up so well, yet the sequel, some seven years later is a disgrace and slap in the face? easy. awful writing and a bad concept.

oh i get it! they're Marines! they must all be @ssholes who make unfunny sexual innuendos and stuff like that. even the girls are tough as nails and act like guys. because women can't be women right? and aren't we way, way, way in the future? good to know these "Marines" act just like Marines in present day films

ATMOSPHERE
you guys alllllll know for me to love a film it needs atmosphere and Aliens is empty in this department the same metallic, cramped spaces are pretty much all we see. which would be fine, if it had any originality or feeling brought to it. but Cameron doesn't care. another major flaw he has in his career is the lack of atmosphere. even T2, for as great as it is, lack a certain atmosphere of the universe. Avatar, while LOOKING great, lacks an atmosphere. i think the closest he's come in Titanic, but i still never got the feeling of being ON the ship, just watching people on a ship.

anyway, the original had the Nostromo with a very distinct feel. Aliens lacks all that. corridor after corridor, explosion after explosion, $h*tty dialogue after $h*tty dialogue... it never ends.

OVER EXPOSURE OF THE ALIENS
not to beat a dead horse, but the original played the lighting game and screen time of the alien perfectly. it left you guessing, it left you interested. and while i understand some would have complained about not knowing what exactly it was yet, if Cameron hadn't showed us, he didn't need to show us SO EFFIN' MUCH! constantly. hundreds upon hundreds of Aliens are shown, and shown all too much. the mystique is long gone by the 90 minute mark. as is the intimidation of the creature, which leads to...

DUMBING DOWN THE ALIENS
i get it. Cameron isn't smart at writing dialogue for characters, nor is he smart for using classic, iconic characters correctly. he took something that was powerful, quick, vicious, incredibly smart and a HUNTER and turned it into a slimy Marine that just couldn't talk or have a gun. as Ripley even says, "it wiped out my entire crew in less than 24 hours". yet, this rag-tag team of doofuses somehow kill alien after alien? and i like how their acid blood (or whatever technical term fans have created for it) doesn't come into play until 90 minutes. and at the end when Ripley is

[Show spoiler]shooting the Queen and the eggs

that should have been a massacre of the ship and ground. yet... nothing

i understand there are guns and these are Marines, not a mining crew, but come on. the first film showed a powerful creature. just ONE. who caused serious problems. this time there are hundreds and yet, there really isn't much of a problem for awhile.

THE FINAL FIGHT
ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. such a let down. i cannot tell you how disappointed and underwhelmed i was by this fight against the Queen. it was staged poorly, structured oddly and features some of the goofiest movements and logic i have seen from Ripley and the Queen (and director) yet in the entire film! as great as the Queen looked, this fight was piss poor and summed up the entire movie - something that should have been awesome, and seemed like it would be awesome, but disappointed greatly.

and then, the biggest issue is...

HOW DOES THIS HELP THE FRANCHISE?
nothing that happens in Aliens pushes the story forward or advances Ripley's character. they go back to where the first film takes place, so no new ground is set. we learn there is a Queen... okay... that's it. it felt like Aliens was running in place and doing nothing to push the envelope or the franchise. T2 was an extraordinary step forward. Aliens isn't. sure, it's louder, and bigger, but what the hell does that actually mean in the long run? and does that mean it's a good film? absolutely not. not in my book.

____________________________________

with all that said, i don't hate Aliens, i just have never really liked it. i barely even like it. it's passable in my book, and one of the most disappointing sequels in cinema history (especially when the first film is such a classic). as much as i love the "world" that Ridley has created, Aliens doesn't justify it being there with it.

there's not a whole lot right in Aliens, simply put.

PQ: 4/5
AQ: 4.5/5

The Film: 3/5

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

At the risk of sounding like an unsophisticated dolt, I gotta disagree with everything here. Most especially the last big paragraph; I've always felt "Aliens" adds a lot to the character and franchise. I love how Ripley toughens up, gains maternal instinct, and becomes a total badass. As far as the story goes, it provides a bridge that discards the old crew and introduces the new one. Above all, it provides a lot more insight on the alien lifecycle, and shows what the heck happened to all those eggs they discovered in the first film. As part of the franchise, it introduces buttloads of tech, weapons, gadgets, concepts, ideas, and insight in the corporate world that would influence the next two sequels and the AvP series.

Ultimately, the thing about it is, "Aliens" is a smashing action movie, but a sucky horror movie, while the first film is the opposite. I'm an action junkie, so the sequel appeals to me more.

Are you going through the whole series? It'll be interesting seeing your scores for #3 and #4...

I'm with Al on this one. I only saw it the one time, but I highly enjoyed Aliens. I gave it a 4.5/5....though to be fair if I were to rewatch it, it would probably become a 4.25 or a 4.

[iam1bearcat]

Super 8

112 minutes - only putting this because i don't know how many are credits since i saw it in theater!

Year: 2011
Director: JJ Abrams
Writer: JJ Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Ryan Lee, Riley Griffiths, Gabriel Basso, Ron Eldard, Kyle Chandler, and Zach Mills

it will be hard to top this as the best movie of 2011, for me personally.

it has the magic, heart, suspense, creativity, excitement and jaw dropping wonder that makes a film magical. it is, in a sense, the very definition of what a film should be - amazing, fun, touching, meaningful and exciting.

i cannot tell you how many times i had a huge smile on my face as a scene was unfolding. honestly, i had only one very minor complaint and that was that the sound effect of a certain character reminded me of something from the Transformers films and Lost. that was it. hands down, the film is special and easily one of my absolute favorites.

sure, that may sound like a lot of ho-hum, early movie hype. sure, i'm a big fan of JJ Abrams so maybe you're thinking i'm just a fanboy who refuses to acknowledge any errors, but the fact that i just spent two hours in a bar with a group of friends talking about the film should speak volumes.

a mix of Stand By Me, E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind... which blends together beautifully. a group of friends filming a movie for a project are witnesses to a devastating train wreck that asks all sorts of mysteries and questions.

and that scene, my god what a scene! an absolute jaw dropper. is it over the top? a bit. but i didn't care. the visuals and sound are stunning and the overall atmosphere of the film had already been imprinted upon me...

summer. late middle school, maybe early, early high school kids filming a movie in the early summer late night heat. 1979 is the setting and there is just a certain magic in the air of the film. it was wonderful, charming, exhilarating and in a weird way peaceful.

i loved every second

the kids were perfectly cast, although my friends had issues with the kid who played Charles. and i usually HATE kid actors, but these kids were great and seem to actually be the characters they were portraying. they never once gave the vibe of "wow. these are just kids. not actors".

the action? INTENSE. and amazing.

the visuals? INSANE. and amazing.

i loved the relationship between Joe and Alice. very touching and rivals my love for the relationship in Let Me In. the two leads are perfect and work well together and their screen time is dynamic and thoughtful. loved it.

the epic scope of the film is astounding. so many memorable scenes and huge long shots of the city landscape. no idea what the budget is, but every dollar was well placed.

i was very pissed at the turn out at my theater. a 10:05 showing on opening night and there was only 10 other people besides the four of us! and my buddy who went on opening night said there was maybe 8 others there! (midnight showing). ridiculous. people need to see this movie.

maybe it won't change your life, and it certainly doesn't do anything new in the world of film, but it's just... so much damn fun. a mix of adventure, sci-fi, and action and shows the story of a group of close friends growing up and experiencing a once in a lifetime event.

an absolute day 1 buy for me and a very good choice as the return trip to the theater after almost a three year hiatus. highly recommended to everyone. don't go in expecting a life changing event or a genre changer or challenger. just go in expecting some good fun with a certain magic and friendliness that few films provide and you should easily be satisfied.

i could go on for hours talking about my love for the film, but i'll try not to. simply put, the film made me smile until my face hurt, laugh until my sides hurt, and startled me until my neck hurt from quick jumps and my jaw hurt from hitting the floor so often (maybe not from "whoa!" surprises, but just by sheer scope of the film).



5/5

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

[Show spoiler]

Super 8

112 minutes - only putting this because i don't know how many are credits since i saw it in theater!

Year: 2011
Director: JJ Abrams
Writer: JJ Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Ryan Lee, Riley Griffiths, Gabriel Basso, Ron Eldard, Kyle Chandler, and Zach Mills

it will be hard to top this as the best movie of 2011, for me personally.

it has the magic, heart, suspense, creativity, excitement and jaw dropping wonder that makes a film magical. it is, in a sense, the very definition of what a film should be - amazing, fun, touching, meaningful and exciting.

i cannot tell you how many times i had a huge smile on my face as a scene was unfolding. honestly, i had only one very minor complaint and that was that the sound effect of a certain character reminded me of something from the Transformers films and Lost. that was it. hands down, the film is special and easily one of my absolute favorites.

sure, that may sound like a lot of ho-hum, early movie hype. sure, i'm a big fan of JJ Abrams so maybe you're thinking i'm just a fanboy who refuses to acknowledge any errors, but the fact that i just spent two hours in a bar with a group of friends talking about the film should speak volumes.

a mix of Stand By Me, E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind... which blends together beautifully. a group of friends filming a movie for a project are witnesses to a devastating train wreck that asks all sorts of mysteries and questions.

and that scene, my god what a scene! an absolute jaw dropper. is it over the top? a bit. but i didn't care. the visuals and sound are stunning and the overall atmosphere of the film had already been imprinted upon me...

summer. late middle school, maybe early, early high school kids filming a movie in the early summer late night heat. 1979 is the setting and there is just a certain magic in the air of the film. it was wonderful, charming, exhilarating and in a weird way peaceful.

i loved every second

the kids were perfectly cast, although my friends had issues with the kid who played Charles. and i usually HATE kid actors, but these kids were great and seem to actually be the characters they were portraying. they never once gave the vibe of "wow. these are just kids. not actors".

the action? INTENSE. and amazing.

the visuals? INSANE. and amazing.

i loved the relationship between Joe and Alice. very touching and rivals my love for the relationship in Let Me In. the two leads are perfect and work well together and their screen time is dynamic and thoughtful. loved it.

the epic scope of the film is astounding. so many memorable scenes and huge long shots of the city landscape. no idea what the budget is, but every dollar was well placed.

i was very pissed at the turn out at my theater. a 10:05 showing on opening night and there was only 10 other people besides the four of us! and my buddy who went on opening night said there was maybe 8 others there! (midnight showing). ridiculous. people need to see this movie.

maybe it won't change your life, and it certainly doesn't do anything new in the world of film, but it's just... so much damn fun. a mix of adventure, sci-fi, and action and shows the story of a group of close friends growing up and experiencing a once in a lifetime event.

an absolute day 1 buy for me and a very good choice as the return trip to the theater after almost a three year hiatus. highly recommended to everyone. don't go in expecting a life changing event or a genre changer or challenger. just go in expecting some good fun with a certain magic and friendliness that few films provide and you should easily be satisfied.

i could go on for hours talking about my love for the film, but i'll try not to. simply put, the film made me smile until my face hurt, laugh until my sides hurt, and startled me until my neck hurt from quick jumps and my jaw hurt from hitting the floor so often (maybe not from "whoa!" surprises, but just by sheer scope of the film).



5/5

Glad to see you enjoyed it as much as I did, bearcar. Incredible movie.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Glad to see you enjoyed it as much as I did, bearcar. Incredible movie.

absolutely! such a wonderful film. even had a bit of a Jurassic Park feel - as far as awe and amazement - and even one scene reminded me of Jurassic Park (particularly the second one):

[Show spoiler]when the monster tips the bus over, the camera angles and directing reminded me of when the two T-Rex's came for the baby

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

absolutely! such a wonderful film. even had a bit of a Jurassic Park feel - as far as awe and amazement - and even one scene reminded me of Jurassic Park (particularly the second one):

[Show spoiler]when the monster tips the bus over, the camera angles and directing reminded me of when the two T-Rex's came for the baby

I didn't even think about that! So true.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

At the risk of sounding like an unsophisticated dolt, I gotta disagree with everything here. Most especially the last big paragraph; I've always felt "Aliens" adds a lot to the character and franchise. I love how Ripley toughens up, gains maternal instinct, and becomes a total badass. As far as the story goes, it provides a bridge that discards the old crew and introduces the new one. Above all, it provides a lot more insight on the alien lifecycle, and shows what the heck happened to all those eggs they discovered in the first film. As part of the franchise, it introduces buttloads of tech, weapons, gadgets, concepts, ideas, and insight in the corporate world that would influence the next two sequels and the AvP series.

Ultimately, the thing about it is, "Aliens" is a smashing action movie, but a sucky horror movie, while the first film is the opposite. I'm an action junkie, so the sequel appeals to me more.

Are you going through the whole series? It'll be interesting seeing your scores for #3 and #4...

Al is right and Bearcat is wrong

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Al is right and Bearcat is wrong

Yeah, I'm with these guys Bearcar.

[Steve46]

Today's blog entry is:

The Fighter (biography, drama, sport)
Directed by David O. Russell
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo and Amy Adams

Paramount Pictures | 2010 | 116 min | Rated R | Released Mar 15, 2011

Video:
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 2.40:1

Audio:
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1

Subtitles:
English, English SDH, French, Spanish

Discs:
50GB Blu-ray Disc
Digital copy (on disc)
DVD copy

The Film 4/5

It's not easy to make a movie about boxing. The fights have to look realistic and there's the problem of the plot.

Rocky won three Oscars and tells the story of an underdog who overcomes the odds. That's the obvious feel-good storyline that will suck in most viewers. Then there's Scorsese's Raging Bull, with two Oscars, which some regard as the best movie of the 80s. Clint Eastwood bravely showed the dangers of boxing in Million Dollar Baby and the movie scooped four Oscars.

So there's clearly plenty of interest in boxing among moviegoers. Is The Fighter in the same league as the three boxing movies mentioned above? What could it possibly do that hadn't been done before? The Academy liked it, nominating it in seven categories and awarding Oscars to supporting actors Christian Bale and Melissa Leo, but why should you watch it?

Like Raging Bull, The Fighter portrays real events, showing the lives of brothers Micky Ward (Wahlberg) and Dicky Eklund (Bale). The movie also has strong characterization. This is not a story focusing on boxing; it's a story about how the dynamic in Micky's family influences his career.

Early in the movie, we get a feel for how things will develop. Dicky is the focus of attention and completely overshadows Micky in every situation. Alice (Leo), their mother, clearly favors Dicky. She barely acknowledges anything that Micky says. The family group is completed by Micky's sisters who always seem to be shouting and trying to attract attention. The result is utter chaos when the whole family appears together on-screen. Instead of shouting even louder to make himself heard above the din, Micky tends to keep quiet. I adopt the same strategy when I'm in a room full of people that don't have any interest in what I'm thinking.

Dicky is famous in Lowell, Mass. for once knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard, but at 40, his dreams of a comeback have little chance to become a reality. He spends his time smoking crack and is unreliable. He's supposed to be training Micky, but often fails to show. Dicky and Alice arrange Micky's fights and match him with an opponent who is 20 pounds heavier. Micky takes a beating and loses his fourth fight in a row.

Micky's fortunes improve when he dates Charlene (Adams), who works in his local bar. She's intelligent, brutally honest, and actually seems to care about what he thinks. Micky's family hates her, but she's strong and stands up to their abuse. When Dicky is arrested and jailed, Charlene persuades Micky to work with a new manager. He is matched against weaker opponents and starts to win. His career quickly improves and he is given the chance to face tougher opponents for more money.

It's here that the movie starts to show real character development. Micky's confidence grows and he starts making more of his own decisions. Alice vows to be a better mother. The biggest change of all concerns Dicky. Prison changes him and he avoids drugs and starts to train. He wants to leave prison a better man and be a positive influence on Micky's life. There's a huge power struggle when he's eventually released.

All of the main actors turn in good performances. Wahlberg trained four years for the part because the movie was continually delayed. Bale portrays Dicky well and it's hard to argue with his Oscar win (although Geoffrey Rush gave a great performance in The King's Speech). Leo was annoying throughout, but that's the whole point. Her character was supposed to be the main cause of conflict. Adams did well with her limited role, but it was too small to merit serious Oscar consideration. She'll have better roles than this.

The boxing scenes look real and were filmed using HBO crews. Although he didn't say much, Wahlberg looked like a boxer.

What is the movie really saying? Is it showing us that it's never too late to change? Is it asking us to question choices between career, family and romantic partners? Is it saying that you should never give up on your dreams? It touches on many themes.

Video Quality 4.5/5
The transfer is strong in every department, displaying the gritty world of The Fighter accurately. Detail is good and colors look natural. This is a drab world, but it seems full of life. Take a look at bricks or clothing and it's easy to see intricate details.

Audio Quality 4.5/5
The DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 mix matches the picture quality. Some of the song choices were inspired and I particularly enjoyed hearing The Breeders' Saints included on the track. All of the songs sound strong and affect the mood. This is a noisy movie, whether it's a family argument, a bar scene, a street brawl or action in the ring. The surrounds will get a good workout and place you right in the middle of the action.

Special Features 3/5

The extras are all presented in full high definition:

Commentary - Director David O. Russell gives his thoughts on the movie and the reason behind some of the choices.

The Warriors Code: Filming The Fighter (29:57) - A good "making of" feature.

Keeping the Faith (8:33) - The real Ward and Eklund families talk about boxing.

Deleted Scenes (16:53) - With optional commentary.

Theatrical Trailer (2:32)

DVD (with digital copy)

The Fighter isn't an easy movie to watch. That's not because it is bad; it's a reflection on the subject matter. It would be hard to exist within such a chaotic family unit and it's actually painful to experience at times. The setting is drab and gritty and it's not a particularly pleasant journey. That's all intentional and is a compliment, but it's not exactly fun to experience. If you like drama, character development and boxing, you'll love The Fighter. If you just want boxing action, there are a few better options. Russell has crafted a good film worthy of its Best Picture nomination.

Overall score 4/5

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Super 8

[Show spoiler]
112 minutes - only putting this because i don't know how many are credits since i saw it in theater!

Year: 2011
Director: JJ Abrams
Writer: JJ Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Ryan Lee, Riley Griffiths, Gabriel Basso, Ron Eldard, Kyle Chandler, and Zach Mills

it will be hard to top this as the best movie of 2011, for me personally.

it has the magic, heart, suspense, creativity, excitement and jaw dropping wonder that makes a film magical. it is, in a sense, the very definition of what a film should be - amazing, fun, touching, meaningful and exciting.

i cannot tell you how many times i had a huge smile on my face as a scene was unfolding. honestly, i had only one very minor complaint and that was that the sound effect of a certain character reminded me of something from the Transformers films and Lost. that was it. hands down, the film is special and easily one of my absolute favorites.

sure, that may sound like a lot of ho-hum, early movie hype. sure, i'm a big fan of JJ Abrams so maybe you're thinking i'm just a fanboy who refuses to acknowledge any errors, but the fact that i just spent two hours in a bar with a group of friends talking about the film should speak volumes.

a mix of Stand By Me, E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind... which blends together beautifully. a group of friends filming a movie for a project are witnesses to a devastating train wreck that asks all sorts of mysteries and questions.

and that scene, my god what a scene! an absolute jaw dropper. is it over the top? a bit. but i didn't care. the visuals and sound are stunning and the overall atmosphere of the film had already been imprinted upon me...

summer. late middle school, maybe early, early high school kids filming a movie in the early summer late night heat. 1979 is the setting and there is just a certain magic in the air of the film. it was wonderful, charming, exhilarating and in a weird way peaceful.

i loved every second

the kids were perfectly cast, although my friends had issues with the kid who played Charles. and i usually HATE kid actors, but these kids were great and seem to actually be the characters they were portraying. they never once gave the vibe of "wow. these are just kids. not actors".

the action? INTENSE. and amazing.

the visuals? INSANE. and amazing.

i loved the relationship between Joe and Alice. very touching and rivals my love for the relationship in Let Me In. the two leads are perfect and work well together and their screen time is dynamic and thoughtful. loved it.

the epic scope of the film is astounding. so many memorable scenes and huge long shots of the city landscape. no idea what the budget is, but every dollar was well placed.

i was very pissed at the turn out at my theater. a 10:05 showing on opening night and there was only 10 other people besides the four of us! and my buddy who went on opening night said there was maybe 8 others there! (midnight showing). ridiculous. people need to see this movie.

maybe it won't change your life, and it certainly doesn't do anything new in the world of film, but it's just... so much damn fun. a mix of adventure, sci-fi, and action and shows the story of a group of close friends growing up and experiencing a once in a lifetime event.

an absolute day 1 buy for me and a very good choice as the return trip to the theater after almost a three year hiatus. highly recommended to everyone. don't go in expecting a life changing event or a genre changer or challenger. just go in expecting some good fun with a certain magic and friendliness that few films provide and you should easily be satisfied.

i could go on for hours talking about my love for the film, but i'll try not to. simply put, the film made me smile until my face hurt, laugh until my sides hurt, and startled me until my neck hurt from quick jumps and my jaw hurt from hitting the floor so often (maybe not from "whoa!" surprises, but just by sheer scope of the film).

5/5

Damn, imma have to check this out 5/5?????? This must be put to the challenge lol.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Damn, imma have to check this out 5/5?????? This must be put to the challenge lol.

I whole heartedly agree with Bearcat's review. 5/5 for me as well. My review is a page back if you want to look at it as well. It really is that good.

[iam1bearcat]

Alien3 [Theatrical Version]

109 minutes

Year: 1992
Director: David Fincher
Writer: David Giler, Walter Hill and Larry Ferguson
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Christopher John Fields, Lance Henriksen, Brian Glover, and Paul McGann

well, that was something.

i remember being much younger and catching bits and pieces on tv. i didn't pay attention because i hadn't seen Aliens at the time. but even at a young age, all i remember hearing was that Alien3 sucks. sucks a lot. that it's terrible. and after watching it today for the first time (theatrical version) i can say it definitely doesn't suck. it's not very good but it doesn't suck.

it has its ups and downs, and while many of the flaws here didn't bug me much, i'm sure for others it did. much like my issues with Aliens really brings the film down for me, and not for others. funny how that works, eh?

i like the atmosphere and the characters a hell of a lot better in Alien3 than in Aliens. i like the color choice and the planet of Fiorina 161 reminds me a lot of something out of 12 Monkeys. grimey, dirty, gross, steel heavy, dingy, smelly... definitely fits the feel of a prison world at the "ass end" of space that anyone barely remembers exists or is even given shipments. so that works well and the prisoners all have their own feel and personas which i enjoyed more than the generic, constant macho same-ness of the characters in Aliens.

now, i enjoy Aliens for the size and scope of the film. it's (i'm gonna guess) the fastest, loudest and biggest film in the franchise, which compliments the first films slow, horror and sci-fi pacing and themes well and now Alien3 brings in a headstrong Ripley who takes responsibility for things she cannot control.

that said, the story is awfully clunky and the 109 minute run time is just way, way, way too long. it felt like this was going on for about six hours

it had moments of greatness (as slim as they were, there are some there) but just never clicked, never got it right or seemed to know what was happening or where it was going. of course, the developmental hell the film went through and problems Fincher had with the studio speak volumes about why the film sucks (and i'm eager to watch the three hour documentary on it after this is done ) and why it isn't what it probably should have been in the end. a real shame.

visuals are at times downright laughable. the alien looks jaw droppingly crappy in some scenes. obviously Fox didn't do much work with making this look great since it's so reviled. and i'm sure the budget wasn't a whole lot so they did the best they could. bad visuals or effects don't ruin a film for me, but it has to be noted that some of the shots look like something out of an original Playstation game. at best

i don't hate Alien3, i think it has some unique additions to the franchise, and while i pretty much hate everything they did with the alien itself:

[Show spoiler] why does it eat people? no one dies right away it just grabs them and then tears them apart? water kills it?!

which somehow was a bigger slap in the face than what Cameron did to the alien species in Aliens the film isn't a total loss.

ironically enough, once Alien3 ended, i said to myself, "wow. i like Aliens a lot more now."


so far each film has a very different feel and presence, which i personally think is great because some franchises feel far too similar film after film and i await what Alien Resurrection delivers. although here is another film i've heard nothing but terrible things about so we'll see.

PQ: 3/5
AQ: 3.5/5

THE FILM: 3/5