The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[BladeRunner2007]

Resident Evil 4/5

First one is still the best.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

starting over

a few months ago i said i was going to "start over" with films and start grading films on a new scale. now that i am settled into my new apartment (been here three months, but with moving, getting a new car and getting a promotion at work it's been a hectic three months!) i feel i am at a point where i can really begin to dive into all that film has to offer.

so, mentally i am "erasing" every film i have seen from memory to the best that i can. my grading scale will be in the numerical format of 1-5 at .5 intervals.

i will be keeping track of every film i have seen in an Excel spreadsheet and writing mediocre reviews on here for everyone to see and probably not read

thinking of starting tonight with "Say Anything", a film i haven't seen for a very long time.

Ooooooooohhhhhhhh

Moved in to my accommodation (bit of a dump, but I won't be hanging around in it that often), I took my TV and PS3 and a few films, felt like watching a film before partaaying, but which one did I pick?

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs

[Show spoiler]I'm going to write as lengthy as a review as I can explaining why I love it, because I've got time to burn!

As you all know Reservoir Dogs is number 1 to me. The opening scene hooks me straight off the bat. You're introduced to 8 guys, and you're instantly able to work out their characteristics. You know who the boss is, due to what he's wearing and the fact he is distant from the rest of the group, along with the fact he's the one that pays for the breakfast. You get that Nice Guy Eddie is his son because of what he's wearing, but he's also a lot more connected to the group of younger people. Like wise you understand Mr. White is a close friend to Joe, as he's the only one who is close enough, both in the relationship and physically, to take the book off him. Mr. Pink is weasily and will back stab anyone to benefit himself, as we see with the tips and then later at the end. Mr. Blonde is also both good friends with Nice Guy Eddie and also has some envy between Mr. White and Joe, which could boil down to his psychopathic tendencies. Mr. Brown is the one who is all talk and no pants, dying away from the line of fire due to his own stupidity. Mr. Blue is old and out of it, taking no nonsense, which could of been the thing that lead to his demise. And lastly, Mr. Orange is the one to rat out on Mr. Pink, the same way he's been ratting out to everyone, and could be his way of trying to get into Joe's comfort zone.

And that's only the opening ten minutes...

And, yes, any great film can do this, but Reservoir Dogs is the HOW TO to me at least. It's very very rough around the edges, which add a sense of charm and humility to it, it feels like a film anyone could of made if they had a good idea. It's why it works. It's a great story told badly, but with charisma and confidence. Trust me, is the words that yell out during the opening scene, it's a great story, just over look the budget issues.

Not only that, but the film is the masculine haven, it idealises men, and there are barely any women to be seen in the film, masculine dialogue, F-bombs falling 60 times a minute, everyone whipping out guns to solve problems. It's as much a glamorisation as it de-glamorises.

Yet the film never loses that element of cool, it's always laid back, making it's own craftsmanship look easy and effortless.

And, unlike every other Tarintino film, the humour comes from the characters over the situations they're placed in.

I don't believe I will ever see what I'll consider the greatest film of all time is, it just won't come along. And that's plainly because Reservoir Dogs is the most perfect imperfect film I've seen, I love the sloppiness and dog ears of the piece, yet it's so damn good. So why would I want to see a guys film who has perfected film making when this works far more better than that could ever do?

9.5/10

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

starting over

a few months ago i said i was going to "start over" with films and start grading films on a new scale. now that i am settled into my new apartment (been here three months, but with moving, getting a new car and getting a promotion at work it's been a hectic three months!) i feel i am at a point where i can really begin to dive into all that film has to offer.

so, mentally i am "erasing" every film i have seen from memory to the best that i can. my grading scale will be in the numerical format of 1-5 at .5 intervals.

i will be keeping track of every film i have seen in an Excel spreadsheet and writing mediocre reviews on here for everyone to see and probably not read

thinking of starting tonight with "Say Anything", a film i haven't seen for a very long time.

Good luck with the restart.

Say Anything seems like a good place to start. Blind bought it a few months ago and absolutely loved it, but that's not surprising.

I've taken a break myself. I haven't watched any movies from my collection in two weeks, and it will be three before I finally jump back in. I've been filling the time with TV shows instead.

[budious]

The Impossible Kid of Kung Fu (1982)



Agent 00 returns in The Impossible Kid. This time the Filipino short guy is out to bust up a hostage ransom extortion ring demanding "1 billion pesos" (aka $24M US). Watch him zip around town on his yellow mini bike and perform mind-blowing stunts. Rip the soundtrack straight from The Pink Panther and you have a winner on your hands. See a little guy held captive in a bird cage. Oh noes. How will Agent 00 escape? See for yourself...

Film 7/10
Action 6/10
Midget on Mini Bike Stunts 9/10
Suave Factor 10/10

[Abdrewes]

Babe: Pig in the City

What an impressive piece of directorial work. George Miller created one of the most breathtaking futuristic Metropolis in this sequel to the much loved original. Replacing the heart and pathos, Miller chooses to concentrate more on thrilling set pieces and dazzling sights.

The aforementioned city is just a wonder to behold: it has ridiculously tall skyscrapers, The Statue of Liberty, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Sydney Opera House all on an island resembling Manhattan. The neighborhood resembles Venice and has very unique architecture. Watching this I was amazed at how many chances Miller took in creating this fully realized and particular world. He shoots it in such a wondrous way resembling the work of Guillermo Del Toro or even Terry Gilliam, the action set pieces are antic yet very intelligible. He places much emphasis on the kinetic: slapstick in the mode of Chaplin's Modern Times or The Gold Rush.

The plot is very much a throwaway and has none of the subtlety and emotion of the first: Babe ventures the city and falls in with misfit animals and is thrust into the hero role in the hopes of saving his friends and farm. Along the way many animals are placed in grave peril: a goldfish outside of water, Babe is chased by evil dogs, a dog and later Babe are in danger of strangultion, one of the worst was a sympathtic dog(with wheels as his hind legs) being launched from a car 30 feet (or so). I would have a problem with this, but seeing as it's executed so fearlessly and inventively, I went along with the thrills.

I'm coming to really appreciate George Miller's body of work ( Mad Max, Babe, Lorenzo's Oil) and plan to see more.

3.5/4

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Babe: Pig in the City

What unimpressive piece of directorial work. George Miller created one of the most breathtaking futuristic Metropolis in this sequel to the much loved original. Replacing the heart and pathos, Miller chooses to concentrate more on thrilling set pieces and dazzling sights.

The aforementioned city is just a wonder to behold: it has ridiculously tall skyscrapers, The Statue of Liberty, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Sydney Opera House all on an island resembling Manhattan. The neighborhood resembles Venice and has very unique architecture. Watching this I was amazed at how many chances Miller took in creating this fully realized and particular world. He shoots it in such a wondrous way resembling the work of Guillermo Del Toro or even Terry Gilliam, the action set pieces are antic yet very intelligible. He places much emphasis on the kinetic: slapstick in the mode of Chaplin's Modern Times or The Gold Rush.

The plot is very much a throwaway and has none of the subtlety and emotion of the first: Babe ventures the city and falls in with misfit animals and is thrust into the hero role in the hopes of saving his friends and farm. Along the way many animals are placed in grave peril: a goldfish outside of water, Babe is chased by evil dogs, a dog and later Babe are in danger of strangultion, one of the worst was a sympathtic dog(with wheels as his hind legs) being launched from a car 30 feet (or so). I would have a problem with this, but seeing as it's executed so fearlessly and inventively, I went along with the thrills.

I'm coming to really appreciate George Miller's body of work ( Mad Max, Babe, Lorenzo's Oil) and plan to see more.

3.5/4

You threw me way off with that second sentence

[bluearth]

The Tree of Life (2011)

Proof positive that being different and crappy at the same time can get you a following. See all the crappy fads that have appeared in the past and what you have now, like the hipster movement with it's crappy style thats seen cool now because its "different", but like every other crappy fad that came and went before it will be looked back on in disgust. The Tree of Life is one of those movies. Its amazing the amount of critics who overlook it's gigantic flaws because it's "artsy" and "different."

Pointless, lost, and desperately trying to be more then it needs to be left me exhausted after 5 minutes. After 30 minutes I was about to fall asleep. After that...? I'd rather drink spoiled milk. I've already wasted my time watching this movie and now writing this review about something thats not worthy of anyone's time, so I'll stop now.

1/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by bluearth

The Tree of Life (2011)

[Show spoiler]
Proof positive that being different and crappy at the same time can get you a following. See all the crappy fads that have appeared in the past and what you have now, like the hipster movement with it's crappy style thats seen cool now because its "different", but like every other crappy fad that came and went before it will be looked back on in disgust. The Tree of Life is one of those movies. Its amazing the amount of critics who overlook it's gigantic flaws because it's "artsy" and "different."

Pointless, lost, and desperately trying to be more then it needs to be left me exhausted after 5 minutes. After 30 minutes I was about to fall asleep. After that...? I'd rather drink spoiled milk. I've already wasted my time watching this movie and now writing this review about something thats not worthy of anyone's time, so I'll stop now.

1/5

That's my main complaint about most arthouse films.

Strangely, "Tree of Life" is one of the very few exceptions for me.

[Al_The_Strange]

I seem to be gearing up for Halloween or something. Over the weekend, I popped in:

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" 1956

As classic of a sci-fi horror film as ever there was one. It kinda has a "Twilight Zone" feel to it, not only because it's shot in glorious black-and-white, but mostly because it's that kind of story. It's the classic case of an entire town becoming victim of an alien menace that replaces human beings with otherworldly doppelgangers (or "pod people!" ); paralells to the Cold War and communist threat ensue. Characters are generally not bad, the movie is well-paced, and it is well-shot. It's something I'd call essential sci-fi viewing.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Yes.

This Blu-Ray is a bit mixed: some parts look rather soft, while others look close to perfect. Sound quality seems alright though.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5




"Island of Lost Souls"

I reviewed this one before, and it generally still applies. I still feel it's a good compliment to every other classic monster flick. This time around, I got a better grasp of the story, its themes, and its quality composition. It's good stuff, man.

4/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

I gave this movie a 4/5 for PQ before, but I was being generous. In all due seriousness, this film looks pretty darn hazy, with some scenes that are blurry. It clears up after a bit and looks good and sharp, but it's never as pristine-looking as other Criterion titles. Chances are that it's a source limitation. Sound quality is alright.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 4/5




"Frankenstein" (I believe it was 1933)

Following the success of 1931's (horridly cheesy) "Dracula," Universal and James Whale set out to manufacture the next best monster film, so they cobbled together and galvinized this film. It's probably the first time anybody tried to apply actual science to Mary Shelly's original story (which, regardless of what other people say, kinda glosses over the "how" about the monster and is more heavy-handed about the "why"). This movie certainly entertains: Boris Karloff is the man, and watching him play the monster is great. All the dialogue is cheesy and hell, and it's great! The film even looks great with its camera composition and elaborate sets. If there's any problem I have, it's simply that this film is a horrible adaptation of Mary Shelly's story. This film only briefly glosses over the deeper themes of godhood and creation. It never broadens the scope one bit (so the movie never ventures off to the Arctic or other countries the way the book did). A bunch of characters are cut out, truncated, and rendered hollow. As it is, Kenneth Branaugh's adaptation is still the closest. This film, however, is probably the classiest.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Marginal | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Yep. But hey, read the book first too, will ya?




After all this monster madness, I just had to pop in...

"Van Helsing"

This could be the perfect entertainment. This could be the perfect Halloween movie. This is the one epic film that takes Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, and the Wolfman and throws them together into one giant cage of endless fighting and mayhem! Special effects are dispensed liberally throughout (and are not holding up well ). The characters sport an impressive arsenal of monster-slaying weaponry. The monsters themselves exhibit the ultimate badassery as they pull of their skin and gnash their teeth and claws into each other's flesh. Ahh yeah...

This film is everybit as fun of an adventure as one could want. Problem is, the story is pretty thin, and the characters are thinner yet. A few bits of promising backstory is given to Van Helsing, but the film never fully engages such a backstory (it was likely left open for potential sequels). The wolfman is somewhat invoking, but ultimately serves little more than just another casualty. Anna is a standard butt-kicking heroine, who's sole purpose is to get tossed around and thrown into walls for the whole movie. Dracula has been reduced to the purest form of cheese imaginable. Frankenstein's monster is a total drama queen. Van Helsing's sidekick is a total rip-off of Q from the 007 movies. As they all go through this complicated mess of fighting and counter-fighting, I'm sure you can nitpick about lots of stupid things in the film. Your enjoyment of this will depend on your tolerance and brain activity.

3/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Marginal | Film: Marginal)

Recommendation: Rental.

The Blu-Ray looks and sounds phenomenal.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5




"Deep Blue Sea"

It plays out a lot like these other movies where a bunch of people are trapped in a place and get hunted by some scary thing (like "Resident Evil," "Event Horizon," "Sphere," etc). In this case, the scary thing happens to be a trio of massive genetically-enhanced sharks! Plenty of 'splosions and shark-chomping ensues. Samuel L Jackson endures the best death scene of his career here. Saffron Burrows is at her most appealing here. LL Cool J is just plain cool. What's not to like?

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Recommendation: Rental.

This Blu-Ray looks really good, and makes the film overall look way better than I remember. Sound quality is good and loud.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

btw, good luck to bearcat and foggy in their new homes!

[jvince]

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
dir. Sean Durkin

The Good: Elizabeth Olsen's breakthrough performance is truly worthy of praise. Fascinating themes. The ambiguous ending is a nice touch (although I could see others feeling short-changed).

The Bad: The film lags at times. Despite all the mysteriousness and Olsen's terrific turn as the lead, the story is just not compelling enough.

The Bottom Line: Martha Marcy May Marlene is strictly for those who are into slow, cryptic films.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

You threw me way off with that second sentence

I meant to say "an impressive"....Yeah My grammar was quite poor, I wrote it a few minutes before crashing. Here's a pic of the city:
http://www.remotecentral.com/dvd/babe2-4.jpg

[P@t_Mtl]

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Sean is back as James Bond. While I am not one to hate On Her Majesty's Secret Service (in fact it's actually one of my favorite James Bond) it did not take well with the public and George Lazenby did not come back. It seem that he was advice by is agent to get out of the seven movie contract he made for James Bond. I think it's one of the worst mistake in cinema history but that's in the past. Connery accepted to come back for one last movie (he would be back 12 years later for another one). In a sort it's a sequel to the previous movie with Bond looking for Blofeld as a revenge for what happen to his wife. The movie as feature the strangest duo of killers in the history of James Bond with Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. On a side note the actor playing Mr. Wint was Bruce Glover, the father of Crispian Glover. Overall it's a fun movie if typical James Bond.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
dir. Sean Durkin

The Good: Elizabeth Olsen's breakthrough performance is truly worthy of praise. Fascinating themes. The ambiguous ending is a nice touch (although I could see others feeling short-changed).

The Bad: The film lags at times. Despite all the mysteriousness and Olsen's terrific turn as the lead, the story is just not compelling enough.

The Bottom Line: Martha Marcy May Marlene is strictly for those who are into slow, cryptic films.

Same here. It just never developed into anything.

[P@t_Mtl]

Beat The Devil (1953)

Humphrey Bogart plus with John Huston as director, it's almost impossible to hate this movie. The movie is hard to put into a category. It could be a thriller, a crime drama, a comedy. In fact I would call it a parody of "film noir". The story is a bit similar to the British movie The Lavender Hill Mob, a bunch of characters that are not exactly as they seem to be, each one hoping to make a fortune in Africa. Beside Bogart the cast include Robert Morley, Peter Lore and Gina Lollobrigida. The movie is quite enjoyable and if you are a fan of Bogart and Huston collaboration, a must see if you never did.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by jvince

Yup. The Qatsi trilogy is coming soon on Criterion Blu-ray. Heck, it might even be among the ones announced next week.

... And I guessed right. Can't wait to own the set. PQ should be .

[P@t_Mtl]

The Artist (2011)

Better late than never but it's been a long time in coming for me to see this movie. I really like Jean Dujardin and was curious to see what he would do in such a type of movie. The story very interesting and for me was a sort of a mix between A Star Is Born and Singing In The Rain. Lot's of superstars of the silent era had to suffer what happen to the character of George Valentin from 1929 on. No longer wanted or able to adapte to the new reality of movie making. The movie is excellent and I would recommend it to anyone even if in general I doubt most people would be able to finish it. As for those making the claim that it's a gimmick in 2011 to make such a movie I say you are wrong! The gimmick in 2011 is using 3D and CGI, making a black and white silent movie in 4:3 in the 21st century could have been either a stroke of genius or a disaster. In the end it was a stroke of genius.

PS : I would recommend two funny movie with Jean Dujardin if you have not see them, the OSS 117 series, OSS 117 Le Caire Nid D'Espions and OSS 117 Rio Ne Repond Plus

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by jvince

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)
dir. Sean Durkin

The Good: Elizabeth Olsen's breakthrough performance is truly worthy of praise. Fascinating themes. The ambiguous ending is a nice touch (although I could see others feeling short-changed).

The Bad: The film lags at times. Despite all the mysteriousness and Olsen's terrific turn as the lead, the story is just not compelling enough.

The Bottom Line: Martha Marcy May Marlene is strictly for those who are into slow, cryptic films.

dammit jvince! you always know how to win me over
by the way, it's amazing how much writing those stars take up!

[budious]

Shivers - They Came from Within (1975)



David Cronenberg's epic tale of turds out for blood... well, not really, but if you watch with your friends it's highly unlikely, almost statistically impossible, you will be able to watch the whole movie without at least dubbing over one line of dialog with a turd joke. Shivers is a campy low-budget terror exploitation outing with creepy little creatures that resemble turds. Why aren't you watching this already?

Film 8/10
Creatures Resembling Turds 9/10
Audience Dubbing Opportunities 10/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

... And I guessed right. Can't wait to own the set. PQ should be .

YESSSSS!!!

Folks in this here thread should also be pleased to see "Following" coming out too. I'm wondering if I should be a Nolan completist and give it another chance...