The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Master (2012)
Drama, 137 minutes
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams

[Show spoiler]Every once in a while, a film is created by a visionary director at the top of his game, with memorable performances from some of the best actors working today, resulting in a cohesive, moving and powerful story that fully resonates with me.

This is not one of those times.

The Master is populated by unlikable characters who do nothing to redeem themselves at any point in the film.

The bulk of the story takes place in 1950. Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is an able-bodied seaman who has trouble adapting to life after the war. He may have been mentally disturbed before that, but we aren't shown enough of his background to make that determination.

We are shown something of Quell's attempts to hold down a regular job -- he seems to have a gift for photography -- but he's quick to anger and attacks one of his customers without apparent provocation. He's also an alcoholic, and we see him drinking all manner of questionable substances, some of which appear to be potentially lethal. When he's accused of poisoning someone with one of his concoctions, he seeks refuge on a ship.

This is where the film gives the audience a glimmer of hope that it will develop into something interesting. This ship is run by Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), who claims to be a writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and a great many more things. Dodd is fascinated by human beings and psychology, and wants to understand Quell and help him with his obvious anger issues. Dodd has his own way of doing things and his psychoanalysis produces the most memorable scenes in the movie.

Dodd is married to Peggy (Adams), but she's just as unpleasant as the rest of the characters. She barely had any lines, and most of the ones she did have were obscene.

Quell frequently fantasizes about women, as outlined in an early masturbation scene on the beach with a girl fashioned out of sand. This theme is continued when he pictures women naked at a gathering.

If this were a story about Dodd's quest to heal Quell, I might be satisfied with it, but the plot meanders along without any obvious conclusion.

I consider myself a patient viewer, and I appreciate all manner of films that have slow plots, hidden messages, and flawed characters. Unfortunately, The Master left me disappointed.

The final 30 minutes were thought-provoking. I found myself thinking whether I should walk out, and whether anyone would mind if I were to take off my right shoe and scratch my foot. I also wondered whether time was moving differently all of a sudden, and if this was the same Paul Thomas Anderson who gave is There Will Be Blood and Magnolia.

The individual components of the film were mostly in place; the acting was fine, the cinematography and score worked, and Anderson presented a convincing picture of New York in the 1950s. What wasn't present was a coherent story or a reason to care about these miserable characters.

I doubt that Amy Adams will ever work for Disney again after some of the words that came out of her mouth.

Overall score 2/5

another disappointed viewer of The Master. i still greatly look forward to the film, but i am very apprehensive

although i am somehow even more curious to see it with the inclusion of your last sentence

[P@t_Mtl]

Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

Directed by : Joss Whedon
Starring : Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo
Format : Blu-ray

Story : Loki steal a important energy sources in the hands of SHIELD. Nick Fury see's no other option but to re-activate The Avengers but forming a team out of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye is easier said then done. They need something to make them fight together, as a team. Can such a spark be found or will the Earth be doom?

Comments : Been hearing comments for months about this one. Could not see it back last summer because of no 2D options near me. It's a very good movie and extremely well done. Whedon did a great job with the story and mixing up the action and the story. I wish it would have lasted longer and somehow not finish. Was a bit sad to

[Show spoiler]see the end of agent Coulson, he as been the main rally point in almost all the movies but I understand why Whedon did it

. This is for me how a comic book movie should be done, wish some other director would understand that.

Ratings : 4/5

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

another disappointed viewer of The Master. i still greatly look forward to the film, but i am very apprehensive

although i am somehow even more curious to see it with the inclusion of your last sentence

I was certain I was going to think it was one of the best films of the year considering the director and cast. I hope it works for you.

[P@t_Mtl]

Hotel Transylvania (2012)

Directed by : Genndy Tartakovsky
Starring : Adam Sandler, Selena Gomez, Andy Samberg
Format : Theater 2D

Story : Hotel Transylvia is a refuge created by Dracula (Sandler) for every monsters to hide from the evil humans. Dracula is raising is daugther Mavis (Gomez) alone due to the tragic death of his wife at the hands of humans. On the weekend of Mavis 118 birthday a human outside Jonathan (Samberg) come's to the hotel and start's to mix things up in a good way.

Comments : This movie as been on my radar since I first heard of it. I have to say I was not disapointed at all. Had a real good time, funny little references to the Universal Monsters and the stroy is very cute. I would have give the movie a 4 but they had some of those silly body function jokes that I really dislike and I just could not give it that much. Still very good and funny I would recommend it.

Ratings : 3.5/5

[Scottie]

I really want to see Argo

[jvince]

Another Year (2010)
dir. Mike Leigh

The Good: Veteran cast is pretty good, especially Lesley Manville. You really feel for her sad character at the end. Such an underrated performance.

The Bad: Dull characters. Dull cinematography. Ultimately feels uneventful.

The Bottom Line: There's nothing really special about Another Year; Leigh's material feels more suitable as a stageplay or a TV special rather than a feature-length drama.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

Another Year (2010)
dir. Mike Leigh

The Good: Veteran cast is pretty good, especially Lesley Manville. You really feel for her sad character at the end. Such an underrated performance.

The Bad: Dull characters. Dull cinematography. Ultimately feels uneventful.

The Bottom Line: There's nothing really special about Another Year; Leigh's material feels more suitable as a stageplay or a TV special rather than a feature-length drama.

[Show spoiler]

The thing is, most of Mike Leigh's films are like that - nothing really happens in them, and the plot is quite dull and uneventful. His work, and other directors who work on similar films, is dubbed "Kitchen Sink Drama" because it's an everyday experience, which is something that I personally don't want to see at the cinema. Still like his directorial style, though.

[legendarymatt92]

If you thought of any particular year in the past half-decade, you could bet your bottom dollar that there would be a Jason Statham project either in the making or just released - whatever your opinion of him, he's one of the most prolific actors worldwide and stars in at least four releases every twelve months (not all of them good, I must add). So, with that knowledge in mind, I wasn't expecting much from Blitz, a film I hadn't really heard much about and that has seemingly passed most of the movie-going public by as well. Statham plays Brant, a police officer who very often crosses the line from protector to complete psycho, yet manages to hold onto his job because his unusual tactics get results. It's a typical role for the Stath to be chosen for - a hard-man with an attitude, he gets to beat up lots of people and snarl in a deep voice a lot - and, to be fair, it's a niche he's carved out for himself; he even appeared in this year's Expendables 2, alongside some of the biggest action heroes to have ever lived. The thing about Blitz is that, unlike some action films that try to be more than they are, it knows exactly where its limit is - and Lester, the director, never exceeds it, much to his credit. It's an old-school action flick, propelled by lots of violence, swearing and black comedy, and it works very well - the plot, although not the most original idea, is even and, dare I say it, quite interesting, and the scripting is dead on; you know you're in with the wrong crowd when people start spouting some of the one-liners from this. Even Paddy Considine (Dead Man's Shoes, Hot Fuzz) makes an appearance in the supporting role, but he doesn't seem as into his character as I would have liked, and that, from him, seemed a bit strange. However, regardless of its lack of originality, its an impressive, albeit formulaic, return to form for one of this generation's action heroes, and a brilliantly delirious wannabe thriller that will keep you entertained.

[jvince]

Shaun of the Dead (2004)
dir. Edgar Wright

The Good: Character work is good. Movie has a few great moments here and there.

The Bad: Not scary. Not funny. Contrived to the point that it comes off as lazy writing. Gets worse and worse with each viewing.

The Bottom Line: I used to like Shaun of the Dead, but repeat viewings have exposed the average horror-comedy that it is. Despite being Edgar Wright's weakest and least inspired directorial effort, it's still worth seeing this Halloween season for fans of zombie flicks.

[Foggy]

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

Shaun of the Dead (2004)
dir. Edgar Wright

The Good: Character work is good. Movie has a few great moments here and there.

The Bad: Not scary. Not funny. Contrived to the point that it comes off as lazy writing. Gets worse and worse with each viewing.

The Bottom Line: I used to like Shaun of the Dead, but repeat viewings have exposed the average horror-comedy that it is. Despite being Edgar Wright's weakest and least inspired directorial effort, it's still worth seeing this Halloween season for fans of zombie flicks.

I can't, in good conscience, allow that to be the final word on Shaun of the Dead on here. It's a superb film that utilises conventions from both comedy and horror to poke fun at both genres; it's brilliantly realised and exceptionally sharp, and the one-liners that permeate the action are amazing. I understand that it might get boring on more than a few viewings for some people, and I completely understand that different people have differing views on any film, but I don't want anyone being put off SotD if they read that above review. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

[legendarymatt92]

From the marketing hype that surrounding Unknown, you might have thought that this was some kind of sequel to Taken, the brilliant 2009 film that got everyone talking about Liam Neeson, and reinvigorated his career with a move to more action-based projects. Unfortunately, Unknown plays more as rip-off than actually expanding character traits that might have been found in his previous films and applying them to a different scenario - a scenario which, at a glance, seems interesting, yet slightly strange; a man is involved in a car crash and, after waking from a coma, finds that another man seems to have taken over his identity and everything that he owns. No one believes that he was ever that man, and even his wife seems to not recognise him. Tension and over-the-top fights ensue.

The problem with the film is that, as unbelievable as the story sounds, nothing to do with the initial concept; the film falls apart around the minute mark, and continues to get steadily worse and worse until it ends on a twist that was so obvious, it doesn't even deserve to be called a "twist". Why anyone associated with this project actually came back each day to film more is beyond me - could no one honestly see how bad this was going to be? Collet-Serra, best known for the pretty decent Orphan, might not have even been on set for most of the shoot, judging by the direction: actors seem not to care when delivering lines, fight scenes aren't shot very well and the whole plot falls down completely on THAT final reveal. It's passable entertainment - only just - for a rainy day, but only if you REALLY shut your brain off for the entire thing and stop the film about 20 minutes from the end. I would never watch it again...ever.

3/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

From the marketing hype that surrounding Unknown, you might have thought that this was some kind of sequel to Taken, the brilliant 2009 film that got everyone talking about Liam Neeson, and reinvigorated his career with a move to more action-based projects. Unfortunately, Unknown plays more as rip-off than actually expanding character traits that might have been found in his previous films and applying them to a different scenario - a scenario which, at a glance, seems interesting, yet slightly strange; a man is involved in a car crash and, after waking from a coma, finds that another man seems to have taken over his identity and everything that he owns. No one believes that he was ever that man, and even his wife seems to not recognise him. Tension and over-the-top fights ensue.

The problem with the film is that, as unbelievable as the story sounds, nothing to do with the initial concept; the film falls apart around the minute mark, and continues to get steadily worse and worse until it ends on a twist that was so obvious, it doesn't even deserve to be called a "twist". Why anyone associated with this project actually came back each day to film more is beyond me - could no one honestly see how bad this was going to be? Collet-Serra, best known for the pretty decent Orphan, might not have even been on set for most of the shoot, judging by the direction: actors seem not to care when delivering lines, fight scenes aren't shot very well and the whole plot falls down completely on THAT final reveal. It's passable entertainment - only just - for a rainy day, but only if you REALLY shut your brain off for the entire thing and stop the film about 20 minutes from the end. I would never watch it again...ever.

3/10

I can't, in good conscience, allow that to be the final word on Unknown on here.

I personally didn't notice that much wrong with the film, but it was a rainy day and I didn't have that much brain activity going on. I might find it crappy on the second viewing. As it is, I didn't think it was that bad.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I can't, in good conscience, allow that to be the final word on Unknown on here.

I personally didn't notice that much wrong with the film, but it was a rainy day and I didn't have that much brain activity going on. I might find it crappy on the second viewing. As it is, I didn't think it was that bad.

Yeah, but it's also you, you'd like anything

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Yeah, but it's also you, you'd like anything

That's not entirely true. I hated Casablanca, The Godfather, Lost in Translation, Wings of Desire, The Thin Red Line, Yu Tu Mama Tabien, L'Avventura, Army of Shadows, Gone with the Wind...

Is that the movie review club lynch mob I hear coming?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That's not entirely true. I hated Casablanca, The Godfather, Lost in Translation, Wings of Desire, The Thin Red Line, Yu Tu Mama Tabien, L'Avventura, Army of Shadows, Gone with the Wind...

Is that the movie review club lynch mob I hear coming?

You'd watch people eat poo!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

You'd watch people eat poo!

Just once a year...with a box of chocolates in hand...

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The Master (2012)
Drama, 137 minutes
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams

[Show spoiler]
Every once in a while, a film is created by a visionary director at the top of his game, with memorable performances from some of the best actors working today, resulting in a cohesive, moving and powerful story that fully resonates with me.

This is not one of those times.

The Master is populated by unlikable characters who do nothing to redeem themselves at any point in the film.

The bulk of the story takes place in 1950. Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is an able-bodied seaman who has trouble adapting to life after the war. He may have been mentally disturbed before that, but we aren't shown enough of his background to make that determination.

We are shown something of Quell's attempts to hold down a regular job -- he seems to have a gift for photography -- but he's quick to anger and attacks one of his customers without apparent provocation. He's also an alcoholic, and we see him drinking all manner of questionable substances, some of which appear to be potentially lethal. When he's accused of poisoning someone with one of his concoctions, he seeks refuge on a ship.

This is where the film gives the audience a glimmer of hope that it will develop into something interesting. This ship is run by Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), who claims to be a writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and a great many more things. Dodd is fascinated by human beings and psychology, and wants to understand Quell and help him with his obvious anger issues. Dodd has his own way of doing things and his psychoanalysis produces the most memorable scenes in the movie.

Dodd is married to Peggy (Adams), but she's just as unpleasant as the rest of the characters. She barely had any lines, and most of the ones she did have were obscene.

Quell frequently fantasizes about women, as outlined in an early masturbation scene on the beach with a girl fashioned out of sand. This theme is continued when he pictures women naked at a gathering.

If this were a story about Dodd's quest to heal Quell, I might be satisfied with it, but the plot meanders along without any obvious conclusion.

[Show spoiler]I consider myself a patient viewer, and I appreciate all manner of films that have slow plots, hidden messages, and flawed characters. Unfortunately, The Master left me disappointed.

The final 30 minutes were thought-provoking. I found myself thinking whether I should walk out, and whether anyone would mind if I were to take off my right shoe and scratch my foot. I also wondered whether time was moving differently all of a sudden, and if this was the same Paul Thomas Anderson who gave is There Will Be Blood and Magnolia.

The individual components of the film were mostly in place; the acting was fine, the cinematography and score worked, and Anderson presented a convincing picture of New York in the 1950s. What wasn't present was a coherent story or a reason to care about these miserable characters.

I doubt that Amy Adams will ever work for Disney again after some of the words that came out of her mouth.

Overall score 2/5

This is a major component to the story--Dodd using Quell's hopeless case as a vehicle toward his own self-approval.

[Show spoiler]His desperation to keep Quell under his wing is what reveals his insecurities about his own method.

The depth is there, but I'm right with you. It's difficult to care for the characters, it doesn't deliver its promising start, and the strong acting can't save it from falling flat.

[Lepidopterous]

I'm sorry, Shaun.


It's alright.


...No, no. I'm sorry, Shaun.

[Show spoiler]

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Slow development for a movie is perfectly fine by me because they're always in one sitting, but the very nature of watching shows is to constantly put it down and come back to it, like a book. So even though not finishing a movie definitely makes a statement on how bad it is, that is not the case with shows because the "stopping" part is normal. It's the "coming back to it" part that I find more difficult than other viewers. Although I am a book person, it's hard to find the same type of endurance for television, which is why I don't consider myself a "TV person". I just can't keep returning to mediocrity if a show doesn't pick up, though you've made it clear that Deadwood is far from that. I may have given it a premature chance too, but it was still an entire movie length of running time that I lent to it. I didn't turn it off while I was watching it like I do for unfinished movies--I simply never got back to it. I will make sure I finish the first season now and report back but there's a lot in line.

very deep there, bro No but seriously, I hadn't thought of it that way (how TV shows do have "natural" stopping points, since they're episodes that are separated by typically one-week waiting periods). Heck, it can actually be more natural to wait to see the next episode: when we watch an entire TV season on blu-ray in a weekend it does feel repetitive , especially after each "previously on..." summary at the beginning of each episode that we have to fast forward through.

this though, the above is all procedural matters, not substance I suppose you addressed substance when you said you can't pick the TV show back up if its mediocre and doesn't "pick up". Squid is right - the characters and dialogue in Deadwood are GOLD The kind of writing you just never see anymore and the DEPTH of the characters is A+.

the highlighed part of your post -- how you gave the TV show a "move length" segment to prove itself. To me, that might not be enough, rather than enough time, since a movie will always have more plot movement in that time segment, so the TV show will always (prematurely) seem "slower"