The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[mimurph1]

Originally Posted by Romulus

I'm a huge fan of the film Woman in the Dunes, which was directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara. I noticed that it is on Criterion, but it's packaged with two other films. Apparently he made a trilogy of sorts between these three films. They aren't connected story wise, but they hit on a lot of the same things.

Have you had a chance to check out The Face of Another? I liked all three movies, but I enjoyed Woman in the Dunes and The Face of Another much more than Pitfall.

[Evra]

Here Comes the Boom (2012)

Remember the film Warrior? The incredible sports drama about a school teacher turning to mixed martial-arts (MMA) to raise money by starting off in ghetto underground fights before landing himself in a televised event under the guidance of a coach who initially thinks that the teacher is not worth his time but is then won over by the teacher’s grit and courage in the end? Well, you are lucky if you do not remember that film because throughout my screening of Here Comes the Boom, I found myself constantly reminded by that film and how much superior that film was, regardless of the difference in tone and execution. Considering how Warrior was released in September 2011 and production for Here Comes the Boom started around March 2011 (Source: Wikipedia), I am surprised at how many similarities these two films share without the latter film copying the earlier for inspiration.

With a running time of slightly over 90 minutes, I found myself chuckling or laughing nine times throughout the entire film which is not by any means, satisfying for a comedy film. Relying on crude kicks to the groin and expulsion of bodily fluids for laughs, Here Comes the Boom is as crude as is the humour scarce throughout the film. Perhaps the only reason to stick through the entire film and not walk away from the theatre hall after the first ten minutes is the same reason why people would even consider watching the film in the first place; it banks on Kevin James’ likability and Salma Hayek’s sexuality. Yet despite their best efforts, James’ character is neither likable nor believable for one to be invested in and while Hayek still looks great approaching 50, she is only on screen for a very, very short time.

Normally, I would not summarise a film’s plot in my reviews but with a plot so thin that it can be summarised in a sentence (or two), I feel like I might as well save you the trouble of watching this film by summarising the film. A demotivated school teacher finds out his fellow music teacher colleague is getting retrenched and needs to raise money to keep the music teacher’s job so he decides to fight in underground MMA fights upon hearing at how well it pays since he had a wrestling background when he was younger. Luckily, one of his English class students happens to be a former MMA fighter and the student offers to train him throughout all his fights including a televised MMA event to raise the money needed. Coincidentally, while he tries to win the affection of a very beautiful colleague in Salma Hayek, as he becomes a better MMA fighter, he regains his passion for teaching and becomes a better person.

I have not spoiled the ending for you but halfway through the film, you will probably figure out how the film will end. The music teacher will get his money, one way or another. Does it matter if Kevin James’ character wins the MMA fight? No, because even if he loses, the Gods of cinema will descend and hand him the money needed for the programme. Knowing the destination is irrelevant in film, the journey is the reason why we are in our seats but when viewers are taken through a route that is all too familiar, I am not sure what could compel viewers to want to watch this in the first place.

Here Comes the Boom is a film without lofty ambitions. It is not set out to win any awards, well maybe MTV Movie Awards which it is unlikely to win as well but it aims to tell a heart-warming tale while being a commercial success. While it fulfils its latter ambitions, it does not fulfil the earlier. The question then begs, why did I watch the movie in the first place if I had known from the start that I would be unlikely to enjoy the film? Well, we will all face lazy Sunday afternoons with nothing better to do. If you face such afternoons, go out and exercise.

2/5

[KingRad]

Jiro Dreams of Sushi

Being someone that has never tried sushi, and doesn't have any interest in the restaurant business, I certainly enjoyed this film. It's incredibly inspirational and the devotion displayed throughout the film is phenomenal. This documentary is balanced well between great source material and great direction.

4/5

[jvince]

One Froggy Evening (1955)
dir. Chuck Jones

The Good: Who could forget this short and that darn frog? Simple yet effective concept. Singing frog is amusing and never gets old. Great underlying message to boot.

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: Widely regarded as one of the greatest animated shorts ever, this very memorable cartoon comes recommended.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Pitfall (1962)

I'm a huge fan of the film Woman in the Dunes, which was directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara. I noticed that it is on Criterion, but it's packaged with two other films. Apparently he made a trilogy of sorts between these three films. They aren't connected story wise, but they hit on a lot of the same things.

Pitfall follows a man and his son as they flee one mine to work at another. After working at the second mine he gets a notice to head to a different mine to meet someone. While walking along the way he comes across a ghost town with one woman living there. He talks for a bit and continues to walk on. He then notices a man dressed in white that starts to follow him. As he tries to get away the man in white murders him. His ghost then watches a murder mystery unfold that involves two local area mines and their respective unions.

That's just the tip of the story, there's a lot more going on. For the most part it's pretty intriguing, but it lacks the style and soundtrack that made Woman in the Dunes so famous. In fact, from a cinematography standpoint it's pretty basic. There are a couple of stylistic moments, but you can tell Hiroshi Teshigahara was still trying to pinpoint an effective way using his style to it's full potential. Worth checking out if you're a fan of Woman in the Dunes or Hiroshi Teshigahara.

3.5/5

Originally Posted by mimurph1

Have you had a chance to check out The Face of Another? I liked all three movies, but I enjoyed Woman in the Dunes and The Face of Another much more than Pitfall.

Oh man, The Woman in the Dunes is definitely one of the craziest, most claustrophobic, and most nightmarish films I have ever seen. I highly recommend you guys to go see it if you haven't yet.

I also gotta check out the rest of Teshigahara's works some time.

[surfdude12]

Aliens (1986)

Film: 3/5
-FIRST VIEWING
-Suffers from "Godfather 3 syndrome" = good movie by itself, but compared to previous movie in the series, it is underwhelming
-Overall, the film is far inferior to Alien because:
(1) characters were annoying as sh!t: Paxton and that Short-haired chick were sooooo annoying that I was rooting for the Aliens (NO JOKE). Yes, I get it that Paxton and the short-haired chick are supposed to represent "realistic" future Marines, but their characters were so exaggerated and ridicolous, that they brought down the authenticity of the entire film. Alien had no ridicolous characters like that - they were all REAL. Paxton is like Midas except everything he touches turns to sh!t (for me) Every line he said ended with "heyyy mannnnnnn!" "heeeyyyy maaaaannnnnn" and his eyes would get bigger than a 2 year old who wants a toy.
(2) unfocused/no big picture: unlike Alien, which was simple and focused , ALiens involves too much factors (planet, Aliens, colony, marines, Ripley, girl, droid, humans on colony, corporate rep dude, corporation on earth, etc etc). Every scene of the film looked the same - they're looking for Aliens. The big picture was ignored, to make room for action in every scene. It never slowed down. You had no idea what part of the planet they're on, how the alien got there, what happened to the colony there, etc. Just action, action, action - alien hunt, alien hunt, alien hunt. Pause the film at any spot and you wouldn't know if it was 1:00 in, 1:30 in, or 2:00 in - its all alien hunt. My mind got bored.
(3) Plot inconsistencies: in the beginning, 2 things don't make sense: (a) Ripley is told that

[Show spoiler]her observations of the Alien are wrong and she is sent to a psych ward. Ok, so looks like she has NO credibility on earth. And yet, when the colony loses transmission to earth, they ask her to go there? Why? You just committed her! Even if the colony lost transmission, the LAST possibility you would entertain would be that one of the insane patients you locked up in the looney bin might be right - you'd presume that 100 other things could have caused that transmission loss

and (b) Why would

[Show spoiler]Ripley go back? it makes no sense. She first says "no", but then that night says "yes". why? becuase she's having daily nightmares. Uh, ok. Well if she goes back, she'll have twice as many. HOw does going back reduce her nightmares. I could understand if her dreams involved her believing she had unfinished business back there, but her dreams are only her giving birth to an alien. I suppose the only thing motivating her going back would be learning that women & children live there

.

Other than that, it was a good movie NO but seriously, I know it sounds like I hated it, but I did enjoy it, just nowhere near as much as Alien

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Pretty much it, the characters are likable and the jokes are good but it's just basic entertainment really.

Seein this tonight. It's a what-the-hell-why-not kind of interest with me. I feel obliged to see it because Levine scored a solid triple with 50/50.

Mill Creek sucks.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Aliens (1986)

Film: 3/5

[Show spoiler]-FIRST VIEWING
-Suffers from "Godfather 3 syndrome" = good movie by itself, but compared to previous movie in the series, it is underwhelming
-Overall, the film is far inferior to Alien because:
(1) characters were annoying as sh!t: Paxton and that Short-haired chick were sooooo annoying that I was rooting for the Aliens (NO JOKE). Yes, I get it that Paxton and the short-haired chick are supposed to represent "realistic" future Marines, but their characters were so exaggerated and ridicolous, that they brought down the authenticity of the entire film. Alien had no ridicolous characters like that - they were all REAL. Paxton is like Midas except everything he touches turns to sh!t (for me) Every line he said ended with "heyyy mannnnnnn!" "heeeyyyy maaaaannnnnn" and his eyes would get bigger than a 2 year old who wants a toy.
(2) unfocused/no big picture: unlike Alien, which was simple and focused , ALiens involves too much factors (planet, Aliens, colony, marines, Ripley, girl, droid, humans on colony, corporate rep dude, corporation on earth, etc etc). Every scene of the film looked the same - they're looking for Aliens. The big picture was ignored, to make room for action in every scene. It never slowed down. You had no idea what part of the planet they're on, how the alien got there, what happened to the colony there, etc. Just action, action, action - alien hunt, alien hunt, alien hunt. Pause the film at any spot and you wouldn't know if it was 1:00 in, 1:30 in, or 2:00 in - its all alien hunt. My mind got bored.
(3) Plot inconsistencies: in the beginning, 2 things don't make sense: (a) Ripley is told that

[Show spoiler]her observations of the Alien are wrong and she is sent to a psych ward. Ok, so looks like she has NO credibility on earth. And yet, when the colony loses transmission to earth, they ask her to go there? Why? You just committed her! Even if the colony lost transmission, the LAST possibility you would entertain would be that one of the insane patients you locked up in the looney bin might be right - you'd presume that 100 other things could have caused that transmission loss

and (b) Why would

[Show spoiler]Ripley go back? it makes no sense. She first says "no", but then that night says "yes". why? becuase she's having daily nightmares. Uh, ok. Well if she goes back, she'll have twice as many. HOw does going back reduce her nightmares. I could understand if her dreams involved her believing she had unfinished business back there, but her dreams are only her giving birth to an alien. I suppose the only thing motivating her going back would be learning that women & children live there

.

Other than that, it was a good movie NO but seriously, I know it sounds like I hated it, but I did enjoy it, just nowhere near as much as Alien

I can't even compare this to the first one. Too different IMO.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

oh man, the woman in the dunes is definitely one of the craziest, most claustrophobic, and most nightmarish films i have ever seen. I highly recommend you guys to go see it if you haven't yet.

I also gotta check out the rest of teshigahara's works some time.

+1

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I can't even compare this to the first one. Too different IMO.

haha, I know what you mean. they are completely different genres.

For me, however, I can't not compare them, since I just watched Scott's masterpiece I need the MIB pen to forget Alien and watch Aliens with a completely clean slate

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

haha, I know what you mean. they are completely different genres.

For me, however, I can't not compare them, since I just watched Scott's masterpiece I need the MIB pen to forget Alien and watch Aliens with a completely clean slate

Yea you have to separate the two

It's funny because when I first saw the two, I watched them back to back. Surprisingly, Alien didn't ruin my Aliens experience. I think it's because both blew me away in entirely different ways (I do prefer the original). Aliens to me oozed that Cameron-epic greatness from the beginning, in a T2 sort of way. I consider them both classics of their respective genres.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Aliens (1986)

Film: 3/5

Alright, I have to respond to this...

Originally Posted by surfdude12

(1) characters were annoying as sh!t: Paxton and that Short-haired chick were sooooo annoying that I was rooting for the Aliens (NO JOKE). Yes, I get it that Paxton and the short-haired chick are supposed to represent "realistic" future Marines, but their characters were so exaggerated and ridicolous, that they brought down the authenticity of the entire film. Alien had no ridicolous characters like that - they were all REAL. Paxton is like Midas except everything he touches turns to sh!t (for me) Every line he said ended with "heyyy mannnnnnn!" "heeeyyyy maaaaannnnnn" and his eyes would get bigger than a 2 year old who wants a toy.

lol, yeah, Paxton was a total dweeb, but that was his whole charm. Annoying, but I found him lovable at times. I thought Vasquez (the short-haired chick, don't know the actress' name) rocked, but then again, those kind of characters appeal to me.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

(2) unfocused/no big picture: unlike Alien, which was simple and focused , ALiens involves too much factors (planet, Aliens, colony, marines, Ripley, girl, droid, humans on colony, corporate rep dude, corporation on earth, etc etc). Every scene of the film looked the same - they're looking for Aliens. The big picture was ignored, to make room for action in every scene. It never slowed down. You had no idea what part of the planet they're on, how the alien got there, what happened to the colony there, etc. Just action, action, action - alien hunt, alien hunt, alien hunt. Pause the film at any spot and you wouldn't know if it was 1:00 in, 1:30 in, or 2:00 in - its all alien hunt. My mind got bored.

Sounds like that's the problem right there: your mind got bored. Which is funny, because my mind got bored watching the first Alien movie. It's like we like movies on the different ends of the spectrum.

Anyway, I always felt the plot structure of Aliens was inherently sound. It is a "bug hunt," but then so much stuff hits the fan that it causes more problems, and the stakes are raised more and more each time. It's not just repetitive action: it's that the action gets more intense as it goes on. The marines start off strong, but by underestimating their enemy, they lose their dropship and all support. That's pretty heavy, and it forces them to try and be resourceful and get the heck off the planet. That's pretty much the whole plot (actually not too different from The Abyss). Tacking on some other big stakes (like the reactors going critical, struggling to save Newt, stumbling across the Alien queen) really put the movie above and beyond in my eyes.

There is one bigger picture here: the threat that the Xenomorphs would leave the planet (LV-420-something) and invade Earth. That's what makes the final act important:

[Show spoiler]all of the aliens get nuked, but the queen stowed away on the ship, and could have caused apocalyptic damage if she had reached Earth, and that's why it was important for Ripley to defeat her.

So the film doesn't have the thematic material of Alien (no sexuality, no organic parallels), but there's so much plot-wise that I find it much more satisfying.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

(3) Plot inconsistencies: in the beginning, 2 things don't make sense: (a) Ripley is told that

[Show spoiler]her observations of the Alien are wrong and she is sent to a psych ward. Ok, so looks like she has NO credibility on earth. And yet, when the colony loses transmission to earth, they ask her to go there? Why? You just committed her! Even if the colony lost transmission, the LAST possibility you would entertain would be that one of the insane patients you locked up in the looney bin might be right - you'd presume that 100 other things could have caused that transmission loss

and

Psych ward? As I recall, Ripley dreamed that she was in the hospital. Then she went to the inquest, for the Company, because they wanted to know what happened to their multi-million dollar ship and crew. It wasn't that she was "crazy," so much as the corporate dips didn't believe her story and decided to shuffle her into a low-rate logistics job to keep her quiet, so they can sweep the whole thing under the rug and move on (and, of course, there's always that subtle notion that

[Show spoiler]the company always knew about the Xenomorph and wanted to capture it for their bioweapons project, so they had to conveniently shut Ripley up

.

Of course, when the s**t hit the fan, then they realized that Ripley was right and they were wrong. That's what makes it so cool.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

(b) Why would

[Show spoiler]Ripley go back? it makes no sense. She first says "no", but then that night says "yes". why? becuase she's having daily nightmares. Uh, ok. Well if she goes back, she'll have twice as many. HOw does going back reduce her nightmares. I could understand if her dreams involved her believing she had unfinished business back there, but her dreams are only her giving birth to an alien. I suppose the only thing motivating her going back would be learning that women & children live there

.

Post traumatic stress syndrome. Cameron purposefully wrote this story to mirror the Vietnam war era, and Weaver herself described Ripley as "Rambolina." Ripley initially wanted to have no part in things, out of fear, but like a war vet, she can never fully let go of the trauma and fear. So in order for her to get over her fears of the Xenomorph completely, she had to go back into the warzone and confront it once and for all. Just like a war vet (like Rambo) never letting go of war, and volunteering to go back into the fight.

That's pretty much the biggest redeeming point for me personally: not just because Ripley gets payback and the marines kick all the aliens' butts, but also because she learns to overcome fear, grows a stronger resolve, and ultimately (through Newt) develops a stronger sense of maternity. This whole movie is about Ripley moving on and growing as a character.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Other than that, it was a good movie NO but seriously, I know it sounds like I hated it, but I did enjoy it, just nowhere near as much as Alien

Right on!

Have you seen 3 and 4 yet? I predict you might like at least some things about #3 (which is less action and more horror).

[Abdrewes]

^^^
I'm a huge Fincher fan, but Im scared revisiting Alien 3 might taint Fincher the same way Hook dies Spielberg. Should I jump right in with the Directors Cut and pretend the theatrical version never existed?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

^^^
I'm a huge Fincher fan, but Im scared revisiting Alien 3 might taint Fincher the same way Hook dies Spielberg. Should I jump right in with the Directors Cut and pretend the theatrical version never existed?

I remember thinking that the director's cut is an improvement; I found myself digging the story, characters, themes, and SFX a little better. It's just pretty long and kinda slow. I think it's worth a look, but I'm not sure if it's really enough to wash away or replace the theatrical cut completely.

Either way, I wouldn't let Alien 3 affect your views on Fincher. The script was too screwy and the production overall was pretty mucked up.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Sounds like that's the problem right there: your mind got bored. Which is funny, because my mind got bored watching the first Alien movie. It's like we like movies on the different ends of the spectrum.

Kind of embarrassing to admit this and lose "man points" but too much action often bores me. It's part of the reason I'm not as enthusiastic for action releases. It just gets repetitive to me sometimes. It's hard to get involved and I find myself staring off into space and thinking of other things. Unless they shake things up like in The Raid.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Kind of embarrassing to admit this and lose "man points" but too much action often bores me. It's part of the reason I'm not as enthusiastic for action releases. It just gets repetitive to me sometimes. It's hard to get involved and I find myself staring off into space and thinking of other things. Unless they shake things up like in The Raid.

I do know what you mean though. These days, a lot of action movies are pretty generic. And action without any variety can be repetitive and dull.

One big example that comes to mind is In the Name of the King. Pretty horrid movie to begin with, but its action scenes are just a bunch of generic shots with people swinging swords. No progression, no variety, just the same old thing over and over for an ungodly length of time. Certain war movies strike me as being this way too (never liked We Were Soldiers, for example, it always felt generic to me).

It also never means much without compelling characters. I actually care about Ellen Ripley, so I find it enjoyable to see her and the marines fight. Can't say the same if everybody was just cannon fodder.

One thing I never liked about Aliens though is the way it's filmed. Lots of dark shots, strobe lighting, and fast cuts. It can be irritating at times.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I do know what you mean though. These days, a lot of action movies are pretty generic. And action without any variety can be repetitive and dull.

One big example that comes to mind is In the Name of the King. Pretty horrid movie to begin with, but its action scenes are just a bunch of generic shots with people swinging swords. No progression, no variety, just the same old thing over and over for an ungodly length of time. Certain war movies strike me as being this way too (never liked We Were Soldiers, for example, it always felt generic to me).

It also never means much without compelling characters. I actually care about Ellen Ripley, so I find it enjoyable to see her and the marines fight. Can't say the same if everybody was just cannon fodder.

One thing I never liked about Aliens though is the way it's filmed. Lots of dark shots, strobe lighting, and fast cuts. It can be irritating at times.

The Raid doesn't have compelling characters either.

To the very least Aliens features typically great coherent action under the hand if Cameron. He's aterrible writer, but he sure does know where to place the camera.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Kind of embarrassing to admit this and lose "man points" but too much action often bores me. It's part of the reason I'm not as enthusiastic for action releases. It just gets repetitive to me sometimes. It's hard to get involved and I find myself staring off into space and thinking of other things. Unless they shake things up like in The Raid.

I'm right there with you. Rarely does an action sequence feel neccessary. Tarantino excells at making them integral to the narrative. But most of them are like Bay's the Rock:
(Michael Bay reading the script) "boring...boring...boring...insert car chase here...insert naked guitar playing Nic cage...boring..boring...insert Mano to Mano fight scene...boring...boring....insert explosions.."

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The Raid doesn't have compelling characters either.

The Raid has compelling action.

Actually, that's probably another reason why I liked Dredd so much. Just like The Raid, but I liked the characters better.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

The Raid has compelling action.

Actually, that's probably another reason why I liked Dredd so much. Just like The Raid, but I liked the characters better.

Did you see the Raid theatrically? It sure is thrilling, but after a certain point it becomes relentless. You're near catatonic by the time it ends.

I've got it on Blu because you can always pause it walk around after too much.