The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by jvince

Well, you seem to love The Pianist, so yeah, you'll likely appreciate this one.

And Michelle Williams is always amazing. Brokeback, Synecdoche, heck, even in Shutter Island she was great. But my favorite performance of hers has to be Blue Valentine. I don't know if you've already seen it, but if you haven't, it's better (and more depressing) than Wendy and Lucy. Williams is up there with Carey Mulligan as my favorite actresses working today.

Yeah I really enjoyed the Pianist and I have blue Valentine on Loan from a friend which I haven't watched yet but Gosling and Williams. How can it not be good

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I reviewed Rushmore a few weeks ago:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=29288

Thanks. I think I somehow missed it.

I suppose if I really enjoyed both Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums and at least liked Bottle Rocket, then I shouldn't have much of a problem with Rushmore. I think I initially passed on it when Criterion released it on Blu-ray because I didn't care for the trailer for the movie, but that wouldn't be the first time I was wrong in that regard.

A small comment on the beginning of your review... I'm a person that actually likes both kinds of comedy that you listed.

[Foggy]

Rushmore's good, but I defiantly liked most his other films more than it (Moonrise, Tenenbaums and Fantastic Mr. Fox). Tried watching Steve Zissou but it wasn't doing anything for me, so I gave up at the thirty min mark (but don't tell Jvince).

[legendarymatt92]

Along the top of every poster advertising this ran the words: "From the director of Role Models". Supposedly not many people knew that the man who helmed that wonderfully funny piece of cinema is David Wain, American comedian turned film director. If you go into Wanderlust expecting Role Models, however, you will be extremely disappointed; it is a million miles away from anything you expect.

The film itself is quite uneven - you understand the characters and what they do, but never really understand why; I think the point Wain was trying to make was that the human condition is confusing and often impulsive, yet that message gets lost somewhere in the muddle of crude humour and real emotion. It is, however, a really great film; Paul Rudd is brilliant as the sarcastic and out of place husband, whilst Jennifer Aniston actually plays the part of a wife who is falling for the hippie lifestyle really well. At times the humour descends to pure crudity (a copious amount of penis jokes due to the nudist who lives on site is one example) but is, on the whole, funny and light-hearted, but the emotion is where the real heart of the film lies - it's so insightful and caring that you can't help but feel better by watching it.
Whilst it never reaches the highes that Role Models does, it was a brilliant and mostly hilarious film that really doesn't skimp on heart for the sake of humour.



8/10

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Rushmore's good, but I defiantly liked most his other films more than it (Moonrise, Tenenbaums and Fantastic Mr. Fox). Tried watching Steve Zissou but it wasn't doing anything for me, so I gave up at the thirty min mark (but don't tell Jvince).

Ummm, I think you just did tell him.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest blind-buy: World on a Wire

[Show spoiler]I soooo wanted to like this. It's sci-fi, it's cyberpunk, it's got lots of philosophical dialogue and paranoia and thrills and other cool stuff that should add up to something great.

What I got was boring! It drags on for three-and-a-half hours, and strained my patience so much, I swear that I almost fell asleep at least four times.

The problem I see is that they took a story for a 90-minute feature (same as The Thirteenth Floor, in fact) and blew it up for a two-part miniseries. The whole film is padded with random, senseless scenes of meandering dialogue and wandering around with no specific direction or point. As the film goes on, it does throw out some occasional ideas and plot points that build up the basic plot structure, but the structure is so buried beneath endless minutes of stuff that it becomes harder to see.

Which is a shame, because the story is not bad, really. It's not terribly hard to figure out, but has enough thought-provoking content to stir the imagination. Characters are pretty cool.

The film has fine and dandy photography and editing. Acting and writing are decent. This production gets a little crazy with the glass and mirrors, so it has some trippy scenes where characters' reflected images appear all over the room as the camera pans across; otherwise, the film does a fine and dandy job of constructing a futuristic setting with then-modern stuff.

In the end, the film is pretty sound, but just too darn long and slow! Toward the end, I was left thinking about other movies and stories that took the same concepts and ideas, and managed to expand on the cyberpunk themes, and still be entertaining. Most especially The Matrix. Oh frakk yeah, that's the good stuff! World on a Wire may be the progenitor, but it looks to me that any derivative works took a good idea and made it better.

Hell, I actually thought Solaris was funner than this!

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

Recommendation: For diehard sci-fi and Criterion fans.

This Blu-Ray fluctuates from looking really soft and fuzzy to looking really sharp and slick. I imagine a lot of it is source issues (especially since it's from 16mm film, I believe), so the film is laden with some heavy-duty grain and noise. Colors tend to be vibrant in a lot of spots, but can also be a little hot. Contrast levels are great. Sound quality is not bad, but if I remember right, I think I heard some fuzziness or airiness in certain spots.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5

I learned a long time ago that "Criterion" didnt mean it was a lock that I'd love it. In fact, my "Dislike Percentage" is probably close to 90%.

Dr. Svet and I have opposite tastes in movies.

the film is undoubtedly a masterpiece of German cinema waiting to be discovered. If you could afford to buy only one Blu-ray this month, get this excellent Criterion release. I guarantee you won't be disappointed. VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

So far, for me anyway, whenever I read something like that, I know that I should probably stay FAR away.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by dag

I saw Holy Motors tonight, and I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it was about.

Did you enjoy it?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I learned a long time ago that "Criterion" didnt mean it was a lock that I'd love it. In fact, my "Dislike Percentage" is probably close to 90%.

Dr. Svet and I have opposite tastes in movies.

So far, for me anyway, whenever I read something like that, I know that I should probably stay FAR away.

lol, I earned some flack yesterday when I posted my mini-review in the Criterion thread. Nobody took too kindly to my comments when I claimed that I felt more like watching The Matrix rather than World on a Wire.

I will give the film some benefit of the doubt, because there is always the chance that I might watch it again and think it's ingenious (as it happened before with The Seventh Seal), but I'd really have to be in the perfect mood for these films sometimes.

I should have learned by now that my own "dislike percentage" is probably too high for me to arbitrarily blind-buy Criterions (probably 40 - 60 % for me), but the sales are just too tempting. At the very least, I've learned to avoid French New Wave and Jean-Luc Goddard like the plague, and to stick with most English and Asian cinema.

Still my last round of CC blind-buys haven't been too bad; Eating Raoul was awesome, Rosemary's Baby is a classic worth keeping, and everything else is fine and dandy. Still got Tokyo Drifter to check out though...I heard it was weird!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Tried watching Steve Zissou but it wasn't doing anything for me, so I gave up at the thirty min mark (but don't tell Jvince).

Same thing happened to me, back when it first came out. It was just way too dry for me.

Having watched Ghostbusters again recently, I'm left wondering what the frakk happened to Bill Murray over the years. He traded in genuine comedic talent to become an art-house snob of some kind.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Thanks. I think I somehow missed it.

I suppose if I really enjoyed both Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums and at least liked Bottle Rocket, then I shouldn't have much of a problem with Rushmore. I think I initially passed on it when Criterion released it on Blu-ray because I didn't care for the trailer for the movie, but that wouldn't be the first time I was wrong in that regard.

A small comment on the beginning of your review... I'm a person that actually likes both kinds of comedy that you listed.

Yeah, sorry. I may or may not be a movie snob, but I'm definitely a comedy snob.

[Foggy]

With me at uni, I've began to stop posting reviews here just due to time constraints, however, if anyone is interested, I do try to post on my Letterboxd account if I have anything interesting or entertaining to say on a film.

http://letterboxd.com/foggy/

Last few films I've reviewed were Magnolia, Boogie Nights and The Town. Of course I'll keep posting reviews for the latest films on here (next films I'll be checking out will be Sightseers and The Master) or if anyone recommends me a film on here (like Marwencol). But if anyone just wants to see my broad ideas on a film, then just check my letterboxd account out.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I don't know...it seems like everywhere I go, nobody has the sophistication or intellect to properly comprehend this talented auter's work.

...as you yourself evidently do, sir, in remarkable abundance. Incidently, it's 'auteur'...

[Show spoiler](Couldn't help myself. Well, actually I could have, but it's a rainy Saturday and I'm bored...)

[Steve46]

Lincoln (2012)

Biography, Drama, History, 149 minutes
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Bruce McGill and Hal Holbrook

I knew that I would have to see Lincoln because it stars Daniel Day-Lewis, but I was wary of the subject matter. Most historical epics leave me cold, and I find that I have little interest in politics of any kind. The prospect of watching two-and-a-half hours of (mostly) men dressed in 1860s garb, and depictions of the Civil War, did not exactly appeal. I had similar misgivings about The Iron Lady (a far inferior film), but wanted to watch the best actress of her generation, Meryl Streep.

Fortunately for me, with the exception of the opening battle scene, Spielberg chose to do something rather different.

I remember a conversation with Quentin Tarantino, in which he was asked the question whether he would ever direct the biography of someone like Elvis Presley. Tarantino replied that he couldn't imagine covering Presley's whole life, but it might be interesting to write a story depicting the day he signed with Sun Records. Spielberg has chosen a similar strategy for Lincoln. Instead of being shown Lincoln's entire life, Spielberg focuses on the vote to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, to abolish slavery.

This sharp focus worked well in another political drama, Frost/Nixon, in which David Frost tries to extract an apology from Nixon for the crimes he committed while in power.

Lincoln believes in the Thirteenth Amendment, and that the Civil War might be ended if he can get the bill passed. The film shows the methods Lincoln and his subordinates use to secure the required number of votes. He calculates that, in addition to the Republican votes, he will need 20 from other sources. We see what motivates some of the men who might be persuaded to vote in favor of the bill.

On a deeper level, the film is inevitably a character study. We see how Lincoln listens to men from every walk of life and makes them feel valued. He earns their respect, loyalty, and even their love. On a more personal level, he has problems within his own family. Lincoln has to face his wife, Mary (Sally Field), as she questions some of his actions. One of the biggest dilemmas is whether Lincoln should allow his son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), to fight in the Civil War.

Other key characters include Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who has motivations of his own regarding the bill, and William Seward (David Strathairn), Lincoln's Secretary of State.

This is an all-star cast, and the acting is superb across the board. Day-Lewis is arguably the finest male actor of the current century, and this performance only adds to his legend. As always, he inhabits the character, never sounding just like himself. Compare this latest performance to his Oscar-winning role in There Will Be Blood, and you'll see what I mean. Lincoln speaks softly for the most part, but he captivates his audience. He tells a number of amusing anecdotes and the audience in my theater loved most of them.

Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones could also receive nominations in the supporting categories. If you remove those three actors, the cast would still be stronger than that seen in most movies.

While Lincoln isn't the ideal type of film for me, I respect what it achieves. The technical work matches the excellent acting. If I had a greater interest in history, or politics, I would probably have liked Lincoln even more. I could imagine American audiences being fascinated by the subject. This will be one of the leading contenders for Oscar nominations.

Possible glitch in the matrix: D-Day from Animal House (McGill) appears alongside D. Day-Lewis.

Overall score 4/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

...as you yourself evidently do, sir, in remarkable abundance. Incidently, it's 'auteur'...

[Show spoiler](Couldn't help myself. Well, actually I could have, but it's a rainy Saturday and I'm bored...)

Dang, I was off by one letter. It's a writer's worst nightmare!

[jvince]

Certified Copy (2010)
dir. Abbas Kiarostami

The Good: Superb performances, especially Juliette Binoche. Her inflections, facial expressions, and body language -- which are heavily utilized and emphasized throughout the film -- are all pitch-perfect. Great writing. Gorgeous cinematography. Very intriguing and is one of those films that will keep you thinking about it afterwards.

The Bad: Definitely not for everyone. Most might find it slow, talky, and challenging, especially since it doesn't really get interesting until about midway through. Feels like a copy of Linklater's Before Sunrise (minus the romaticism).

The Bottom Line: Certified Copy is recommended for Criterion fans and those who are into dialogue-driven, puzzle-like films.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by menaceuk

Yeah I really enjoyed the Pianist and I have blue Valentine on Loan from a friend which I haven't watched yet but Gosling and Williams. How can it not be good

Man, you gotta see Blue Valentine. Gosling and Williams absolutely kill it.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Rushmore's good, but I defiantly liked most his other films more than it (Moonrise, Tenenbaums and Fantastic Mr. Fox). Tried watching Steve Zissou but it wasn't doing anything for me, so I gave up at the thirty min mark (but don't tell Jvince).

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Same thing happened to me, back when it first came out. It was just way too dry for me.

But you know what, I also felt the same way the first time I tried to watch it. I switched the channel after about 15-20 minutes. I didn't get it and I didn't feel it. But the second time I caught it on TV (which is some time after I saw his other films like Tenenbaums and Mr. Fox), I was completely enthralled, I don't know what happened. Now, it's one of my all-time favorites.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Having watched Ghostbusters again recently, I'm left wondering what the frakk happened to Bill Murray over the years. He traded in genuine comedic talent to become an art-house snob of some kind.

I actually prefer the new Bill Murray over the old Bill Murray.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Still got Tokyo Drifter to check out though...I heard it was weird!

I've seen Suzuki's other Criterion film, Branded to Kill, and man was it freaking weird.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

Man, you gotta see Blue Valentine. Gosling and Williams absolutely kill it.

Ummm, the person did say they borrowed it, so obviously they are going to watch it at some point.

Agreed though. They were both very good in it. Not my usual kind of a movie, but it oddly enough worked for me. The ukulele scene alone is worth watching the movie for.

[Steve46]

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
Drama, Romance, 102 minutes
Directed by Stephen Chbosky
Starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller

When the trailer proudly stated that The Perks of Being a Wallflower was from the producers of Juno, I found myself wishing that it had the same writer and director too. But after seeing the movie, I'm more than happy with what I was given. Stephen Chbosky wrote and directed, and he has captured the same feeling that some of the best teen movies of the 80s (The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, Heathers) had, and has probably improved upon them.

Perks feels more like a combination of Dead Poets Society and Stand By Me than some of the pure comedies from that era, but it has an abundance of funny scenes mixed in with the more serious and reflective observations. In short, it's a mature look at what teens have to go through. Everybody who has lived through their teen years will identify with this movie.

We see the world through the eyes of 15-year-old Charlie (Lerman). He's about to start high school and he's terrified that he won't be able to make any friends. His nightmares appear to be confirmed until he joins two students at their table during lunch. They are a little older than him, but seem sympathetic to his plight.

Minor spoilers follow, but nothing that isn't revealed in the opening minutes of the movie:

His two lunch companions are Sam (Watson), who is an outgoing girl and seems very sure of herself, and Patrick (Miller), who has already caught Charlie's eye by playing pranks in class. Charlie thinks they are a couple, but Sam is in fact Patrick's half-sister. Charlie likes both immediately and quickly becomes smitten with Sam. Patrick is flamboyant and we learn that he's gay. The friendship between the three is the very heart of the film.

The themes are not exactly original, but definitely a part of growing up. You'll see the agony of young love, drunken parties, experiments with drugs, and deeper emotional problems that most young people face at one time or another.

Another major theme is the importance of music. One scene involving the three friends features a drive through a tunnel in which they discover an unknown song on the radio. It's one of the key scenes in the movie. Not only does it capture a feeling associated with youth, it also highlights the difference between Sam and Charlie. He's shy and reserved, while she has a free spirit. We see Charlie develop throughout the movie and try to recapture that feeling. I did feel old for a moment when I realized that younger people might not know the music of David Bowie, or would consider the music of the Cocteau Twins old.

The movie touches on deeper themes that would not belong in a pure comedy, but they just add to the richness of this wonderful story. Fans of The Rocky Horror Picture Show will be pleased that a couple of the scenes touch on the influence of that movie and play a part in the overall story.

One thing that I was interested to see was the performance of Emma Watson. I did catch her small role in My Week with Marilyn, but this was the first time I had seen her in a major role since the Harry Potter movies. When you know an actor for one role in particular, it can be difficult to imagine them as anyone else, but I was impressed with Watson's performance. Although I still recognized some familiar gestures and expressions, she wasn't Hermione Granger. She's very believable as Sam.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower surprised me considerably. My teen years seem like a lifetime ago, but the movie took me right back to those formative years. I was on the verge of tears several times and laughed often. What more could you want from a movie?

One of my close friends will love this movie. Especially a scene in which someone claims that music sounds better on vinyl.

Overall score 4.5/5

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Foggy

With me at uni, I've began to stop posting reviews here just due to time constraints, however, if anyone is interested, I do try to post on my Letterboxd account if I have anything interesting or entertaining to say on a film.

http://letterboxd.com/foggy/

Last few films I've reviewed were Magnolia, Boogie Nights and The Town. Of course I'll keep posting reviews for the latest films on here (next films I'll be checking out will be Sightseers and The Master) or if anyone recommends me a film on here (like Marwencol). But if anyone just wants to see my broad ideas on a film, then just check my letterboxd account out.

nice site Foggy, and great reviews for Magnolia and Boogie Nights

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

But you know what, I also felt the same way the first time I tried to watch it. I switched the channel after about 15-20 minutes. I didn't get it and I didn't feel it. But the second time I caught it on TV (which is some time after I saw his other films like Tenenbaums and Mr. Fox), I was completely enthralled, I don't know what happened. Now, it's one of my all-time favorites.

One of these days, I might do what you did and check out the other Wes Anderson films before giving The Life Aquatic another try.

So far, I've only seen the Fantastic Mr Fox.

Originally Posted by jvince

I actually prefer the new Bill Murray over the old Bill Murray.

lol, I think it's like comparing two totally different types of humor. I'm more into slapstick and silliness.