The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Did not expect to see The Warriors on there

I love it for some reason. It doesn't make any sense.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I love it for some reason. It doesn't make any sense.

I think the best films are the ones that you can't explain why they're so special. It's the reason why Reservoir Dogs is always my favorite film of all time, it just has something there that works for me but I can't figure out why, maybe I've stopped trying and just embrace it

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I think the best films are the ones that you can't explain why they're so special. It's the reason why Reservoir Dogs is always my favorite film of all time, it just has something there that works for me but I can't figure out why, maybe I've stopped trying and just embrace it

Agreed, but it makes reviews tricky

[surfdude12]

The Thing

Film: 4/5
-can't put my finger on why this isn't up there with my favorites. If I had to guess, its because it shows too much. I keep saying this, but the best horror films LET ME create the imagery, DONT SHOW me the imagery. Sure, go ahead, show me something, but keep it indefinite, vague, etc., enough so that I can still do a lot of the visualization. Unfortunately, "the thing" is shown to us repeatedly over and over, which really ties our mind (pun on "ties our hands") so I don't feel as terrified as The Descent, where we do see the monsters, but its always for a split second, or in the dark, so that its vague enough for us to terrify ourselves with our own mind.
-my favorite part of the film? the end:

[Show spoiler]so BLEAK its great - no hope, no way out, just total acceptance that you are totally effed. Forget the cliche hollywood happy ending crap - this is Realism 101!

. now i see how Neil Marshall says he got a lot of his ending of The Descent from this.


Bottle Rocket

Film: 3.75/5
-my favorite Wes Anderson film (only one I like)
-Owen Wilson is annoying as hell, but funny at the same time
-robbery scene is genius! Its such a debacle that I was rolling on the floor laughing. the indian dude Kumar had me in stitches. You can tell he's never even stolen a quarter from someone, and here he is in a robbery. just sooo out of place and uncoordinated

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Bottle Rocket

Film: 3.75/5
-my favorite Wes Anderson film (only one I like)
-Owen Wilson is annoying as hell, but funny at the same time
-robbery scene is genius! Its such a debacle that I was rolling on the floor laughing. the indian dude Kumar had me in stitches. You can tell he's never even stolen a quarter from someone, and here he is in a robbery. just sooo out of place and uncoordinated

Great use of ski masks. Fantastic Mr. Fox reminds me of Bottle Rocket for that reason when they pull out the bandit masks.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

The Thing

Film: 4/5
-can't put my finger on why this isn't up there with my favorites. If I had to guess, its because it shows too much. I keep saying this, but the best horror films LET ME create the imagery, DONT SHOW me the imagery. Sure, go ahead, show me something, but keep it indefinite, vague, etc., enough so that I can still do a lot of the visualization. Unfortunately, "the thing" is shown to us repeatedly over and over, which really ties our mind (pun on "ties our hands") so I don't feel as terrified as The Descent, where we do see the monsters, but its always for a split second, or in the dark, so that its vague enough for us to terrify ourselves with our own mind.
-my favorite part of the film? the end:

[Show spoiler]so BLEAK its great - no hope, no way out, just total acceptance that you are totally effed. Forget the cliche hollywood happy ending crap - this is Realism 101!

. now i see how Neil Marshall says he got a lot of his ending of The Descent from this.

The "Thing" John Carpenter shows us is way WAY scarier and freakier than anything my own imagination can come up with (...and my imagination scares me sometimes ). Incidentially, it borrows a lot from HP Lovecraft, who made his works scary because everything he described was something unnatural, otherworldly, and often shapeless (just like the "Thing" itself). On that level, I think "The Thing" works brilliantly.

If anything, I felt JC's version showed just the right amount. It's enough to freak the audience out, but not necessarily everything. I never could wrap my head around how the "Thing" could inhabit a human body, tentacles teeth and all. At least until last year's remake came out; it showed you practically everything, going so far as to make the "Thing" merged with a human body half of the time. I thought it was a neat effect, and it made me realize how little JC really showed. But I still give the edge to JC.

One thing is certain...the original 50s monster is cheesy.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

If anything, I felt JC's version showed just the right amount. It's enough to freak the audience out, but not necessarily everything. I never could wrap my head around how the "Thing" could inhabit a human body, tentacles teeth and all.

good points. he didn't show everything. that is certainly true. if you asked me to describe what "the thing" is and how it worked, I couldn't really describe it to you. so on that basis, he succeeded.

I wouldn't touch that remake with a 10 foot pole

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

good points. he didn't show everything. that is certainly true. if you asked me to describe what "the thing" is and how it worked, I couldn't really describe it to you. so on that basis, he succeeded.

I wouldn't touch that remake with a 10 foot pole

Don't touch it with any sort of pole, it sucks!

[antmumford]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

good points. he didn't show everything. that is certainly true. if you asked me to describe what "the thing" is and how it worked, I couldn't really describe it to you. so on that basis, he succeeded.

I wouldn't touch that remake with a 10 foot pole

It's not a remake, it's a prequel

[Steve46]

94. Wings of Desire (1987)
Fantasy, Drama, Romance, 128 minutes, German, English, French and Turkish language
Directed by Wim Wenders
Starring Bruno Ganz, Solveig Dommartin, Peter Falk and Otto Sander



The bulk of the film is in German, although some dialogue is in English. There are also occasional moments in French and Turkish.

Although this review contains spoilers, there's not really much to spoil. Each viewer will get something different from the film. The events are merely a loose framework used to provoke thought.

Wings of Desire is not an easy film to watch. It requires a lot of patience and you'll get very little from it if you aren't prepared to think. It's one of those stories that shows you events or allows you to hear thoughts, and then you make of it what you will. There isn't a conventional plot at all. If you watched The Tree of Life and had problems with its abstract narrative, Wings of Desire will test you even more. It's almost like a poem.

The story involves two immortal angels, Cassiel (Sander) and Damiel (Ganz), who have existed for millennia. The setting is Berlin, but the angels knew the city before humans ever existed. They remember how the river found its bed and how life as we know it began. They are serious and rarely show any emotion. Perhaps they have seen everything and it no longer affects them, or is their dispassionate outlook part of their very nature?

Their job is to observe humans and we see through their eyes in black and white. They can hear the thoughts of everyone they pass. Occasionally, when someone is sad or contemplating a desperate act, the angels intervene by touching the shoulder of the person in trouble. This gives that person a sense of hope and well being, but there's no guarantee the person will act on it. Children are able to see angels. Perhaps their innocence and lack of cynicism allows them to see what adults cannot?

Thoughts are usually presented as whispers, so the majority of the film feels very peaceful and relaxing. From the angels' point of view, it can be noisy when a large number of people are concentrated in a small space. We see some of these encounters on the street and in a public library. It's not clear why the angels are watching. Yes, they sometimes intervene and provide comfort, but they are mainly observing human behavior. They sometimes record unusual behavior in a notebook and talk about it among themselves.

As I mentioned, the film doesn't offer much guidance and won't tell you what conclusions to draw from the behavior of the angels. It will mean something different to everybody.

There are two other elements woven into the mix:

The first shows Marion (Dommartin), who is a female trapeze artist. She is temporarily working at a local circus and we discover from her thoughts that she's unhappy and lonely. She desperately wants to be loved. When she's alone, she listens to Nick Cave's music and dreams of one day finding someone.

The other thread involves Peter Falk, playing himself. His inclusion was a stroke of genius. Falk thinks in unusual ways and can sense the presence of angels. He talks to Damiel at one point and says that he wishes Damiel could experience things as he does. The pleasure of drinking coffee, smoking, or rubbing his hands together when he's cold. He's not afraid to talk to angels even though other people look at him as if he is crazy. The reason that he can do this is startling, but I won't reveal it here.

After about 90 minutes of showing us the angels in action, the film takes a sudden turn. Damiel has been observing Marion and has fallen in love with her. He wants to take the plunge and become a mortal human being in the hope that she will return his feelings. He wants to feel, touch, smell, taste and experience what it is like to really be alive.

Nick Cave has another part to play in the conclusion and we hear his thoughts while he is performing. His final song is From Her to Eternity, which is extremely appropriate in the context of the story.

The film switches from black and white to color when we see events from the viewpoint of humans rather than angels. It's particularly effective when Damiel is able to experience life fully for the first time.

For the majority of the film, the camera shows us what the angels see. This has the effect of making us observers too, and we can imagine what it would be like to witness so much joy and suffering, while only occasionally intervening. What is Wim Wenders asking us to see? Is it an invitation to contemplate the meaning of our existence?

If you like Wings of Desire:

Wim Wenders directed another story set in the same world called Faraway, So Close, also starring Bruno Ganz and Otto Sander as Damiel and Cassiel. I haven't seen it yet, but will do so as soon as I track down a copy.

If you enjoy contemplating the meaning of existence and how everything works, take a look at The Double Life of Veronique, directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski.

If you want to explore other films by Wim Wenders, I would recommend Paris, Texas, starring Harry Dean Stanton and Nastassja Kinksi.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by antmumford

It's not a remake, it's a prequel

then they shouldn't have re-used the same exact title

still won't see it -- its the filming technique that doesn't interest me, not whether its a prequel or remake.

[antmumford]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

then they shouldn't have re-used the same exact title

still won't see it -- its the filming technique that doesn't interest me, not whether its a prequel or remake.

I completely agree with you. I haven't seen it myself yet but I'll watch it as and when it randomly appears from Lovefilm.
It really peeved me off that they called it The Thing too, it's just incomprehensible as for the logic behind it. Not sure if it was just to get more sales but for me as a die hard fan of the JC one then it only put me off even more.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by antmumford

I completely agree with you. I haven't seen it myself yet but I'll watch it as and when it randomly appears from Lovefilm.
It really peeved me off that they called it The Thing too, it's just incomprehensible as for the logic behind it. Not sure if it was just to get more sales but for me as a die hard fan of the JC one then it only put me off even more.

Apparently, the story behind the name is that they couldn't come up with a decent prequel name, so they just re-used the first one. Basically, they were being lazy

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by antmumford

I completely agree with you. I haven't seen it myself yet but I'll watch it as and when it randomly appears from Lovefilm.
It really peeved me off that they called it The Thing too, it's just incomprehensible as for the logic behind it. Not sure if it was just to get more sales but for me as a die hard fan of the JC one then it only put me off even more.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Apparently, the story behind the name is that they couldn't come up with a decent prequel name, so they just re-used the first one. Basically, they were being lazy

"The Pre-Thing"

or my favorite:

"The Thing before The Thing"

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

"The Pre-Thing"

or my favorite:

"The Thing before The Thing"

Yo! SmurfPuppy, wassup wit Da Skin I Live In?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yo! SmurfPuppy, wassup wit Da Skin I Live In?

dude, I got sidetracked with Game of Thrones. some chick made me put it to top of my queue, that Da Skin film is like #4

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

dude, I got sidetracked with Game of Thrones. some chick made me put it to top of my queue, that Da Skin film is like #4

Have you seen any GoT yet? How is it?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Have you seen any GoT yet? How is it?

just episodes 1-2 of season 1. so far, its basically Rome (sex + politics + fighting), down a notch or two. It seems to have fantasy elements (magic creatures, etc), so its kind of like Rome and LOTR put together. Not bad so far, but I've only seen 2 episodes.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

just episodes 1-2 of season 1. so far, its basically Rome (sex + politics + fighting), down a notch or two. It seems to have fantasy elements (magic creatures, etc), so its kind of like Rome and LOTR put together. Not bad so far, but I've only seen 2 episodes.

A notch down as far as the sex and violence, or the quality/enjoyment of the show itself?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

A notch down as far as the sex and violence, or the quality/enjoyment of the show itself?

quality of show - the sex/violence is right there. Rome just seemed more real (because it was, I guess). But beyond the non-fiction basis of Rome, the characters/actors of Rome seemed better than GOT, in spite of Sean Bean, who is quite obviously perfectly cast in these roles (the guy looks like he stepped out of a 1100 AD time machine). I can't tell if its the script or the acting, but something just doesn't seem as real as Rome. I know I shouldn't even be comparing them, as one is fantasy (I think?) and one is based on history, but the similarities in the show are so blatantly similar that I can't help it.

I have episodes 3-6 at home. will know much more after those