The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jvince

Notorious (1946)
dir. Alfred Hitchcock

[Show spoiler]

The Good: The lovely Ingrid Bergman. Intense, electrifying chemistry between Cary Grant and Bergman. Magnificent performances from its three charismatic leads, including the great Claude Rains. Masterful camera work. The party. Evil Nazi mother-in-law... Of course... (Someone's got some serious mommy issues)... Oh, and did I mention Ingrid Bergman?

The Bad: Like most of Hitchcock's films, I'm not a fan of his abrupt cuts and ending in this one.

The Bottom Line: A superb, romantic spy thriller oozing with sexual tension. Well worth checking out.

I look forward to watching this whenever I end up buying the three Fox/MGM individuals of these (or if The Classic Collection gets cheaper).

Of course, I could say that about all of Hitchock's films besides the few I already own (The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest, and To Catch a Thief).

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Zero Dark Thirty

[Show spoiler] This is as real as it gets, for a Hollywood picture anyway. This film chronicles the decade-long search for the notorious Osama Bin Laden, and his ultimate demise, thanks to the dedicated actions of U.S. intelligence and soldiers. Most of this film is built on a realistic portrayal of intel gathering and the actual operation; if such things interest you, then this film should be right up your alley. Most of it is a grim, brooding, realistic drama that emphasizes the danger, the political nuances, and the moral ambiguity of the entire operation. There is action toward the end, but it’s a pretty quiet, straightforward affair, just as the operation itself would have been. There are a few ugly scenes as well: the torture scenes in the film’s beginning won’t sit well with everybody, and it has caused some controversy. Whether you condone or condemn everything in the film, these are things that actually happened, and the film presents them without condoning or condemning.

All of this is shown through the vantage point of a character named Maya, who serves to fulfill multiple roles in multiple levels of the operation, allowing us to see the whole thing unfold from the bottom up. It’s a bit of a stretch to believe that Maya could act in all the roles she’s given, but as a composite character, she serves the narrative’s purpose really well. What really helps will be the film’s pathos; it’s hard not to admire Maya as a character, who shows decent development, and proves to be a thrill to watch with her aggressive dedication and shrewdness. As far as the plot itself goes, it’s a straightforward affair, but it seems to adhere to real-life events really well.

This film uses some rough-around-the-edges photography, but the editing is not bad. Acting is generally good, but Jessica Chastain steals the show throughout with her perfectly nuanced performance. Writing is okay. This production uses real-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is pretty moody.

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

Actually just had a copy of the SteelBook for this arrive today, so obviously I agree.

Jack Reacher

[Show spoiler] We’ve all seen these type of action-packed detective movies before; watching Jack Reacher reminded me so much of the typical action films of the 90s, such as The Fugitive or US Marshalls. Yes, there is action: Jack Reacher has quite a few cool fight scenes, some shooting, and one car chase scene (probably the most real-looking car chase I’ve seen since Bullit). However, the action never seems to take the front stage: it’s the characters and the mystery story that does.

The story for this film starts off looking like a standard, possibly predictable, affair: a crime happened, police catch a suspect, and you start to get the feeling that things won’t go all that simply. What really makes the story unique is that it throws in a totally random element: the Jack Reacher character, who’s not really involved with the law at all, but is sent in to investigate and deal with bad guys in his own lawless manner. It’s especially interesting that this character is basically a ghost, who can effectively disappear in a crowd and fall off the grid at a whim. The film itself seems to question, who the hell is Jack Reacher? but by the end, you get a good feeling for the answer. With a few major plot twists and good supporting characters, the film does rise a little above and beyond the average police-detective-movie fare.

This film uses some good photography, which features some interesting camera angles, but is mostly pretty plain and straightforward, like most other movies of this type. Editing is good. Acting is generally good, although I still see Tom Cruise as being just more of the same in this. Writing is good. This production uses fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music sounded good at times too.

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

Recommendation: Genre fans should give it a try.

I hope to agree with you on this one as well when it comes out on Blu-ray next month. I'd be shocked if I didn't though of course.

[Abdrewes]

Holy crap! Star TRek 5 What the hell was Shatner thinking. The final third reaches Battlefield Earth levels of bad.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Jack Reacher

[Show spoiler] We’ve all seen these type of action-packed detective movies before; watching Jack Reacher reminded me so much of the typical action films of the 90s, such as The Fugitive or US Marshalls. Yes, there is action: Jack Reacher has quite a few cool fight scenes, some shooting, and one car chase scene (probably the most real-looking car chase I’ve seen since Bullit). However, the action never seems to take the front stage: it’s the characters and the mystery story that does.

The story for this film starts off looking like a standard, possibly predictable, affair: a crime happened, police catch a suspect, and you start to get the feeling that things won’t go all that simply. What really makes the story unique is that it throws in a totally random element: the Jack Reacher character, who’s not really involved with the law at all, but is sent in to investigate and deal with bad guys in his own lawless manner. It’s especially interesting that this character is basically a ghost, who can effectively disappear in a crowd and fall off the grid at a whim. The film itself seems to question, who the hell is Jack Reacher? but by the end, you get a good feeling for the answer. With a few major plot twists and good supporting characters, the film does rise a little above and beyond the average police-detective-movie fare.

This film uses some good photography, which features some interesting camera angles, but is mostly pretty plain and straightforward, like most other movies of this type. Editing is good. Acting is generally good, although I still see Tom Cruise as being just more of the same in this. Writing is good. This production uses fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music sounded good at times too.

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

Recommendation: Genre fans should give it a try.

Correct

[Al_The_Strange]

Olympus Has Fallen

This is that movie you can easily write off as “Die Hard in the White House.” In fact, this is probably what the last couple of Die Hard films should have been. Olympus Has Fallen follows the exact same plot formula established in the first Die Hard, and since used in numerous action flicks like Under Siege and Air Force One.

You know the story: you start off seeing how the main character gets to the lowly position he’s in, while everybody else goes about their daily business. Then, BAM! Bad guys create a huge crisis situation, and it’s up to the hero to save the day against all odds. Simple and formulaic. With the premise of a rogue Korean paramilitary group taking over the White House, the film is also highly exaggerated, and will likely push the boundaries of what’s believable and realistic. Chances are that you’ll read this, or see the trailer, and make up your own mind about whether this is awesome, or just derivative bull.

If nothing else, Olympus Has Fallen has a ton of action. Aside from the opening scenes, which establish some necessary character-building points, the action hits early in the film with sudden and explosive force. It’s actually pretty scary to watch all the mass carnage raining down on DC. Lots of explosions, lots of loud gunfights, lots of gnarly knife fights, and huge helpings of suspense ensue.

Most of the story is already described above. It may not be anything special, but I applaud it for sticking with the fundamentals. Characters are built up well enough by action movie standards. What makes the story worthwhile will be the sheer amount of conflict and stakes that are raised; absurd, perhaps, but definitely gripping. The film also tries hard to pull on some patriotic heartstrings; such overtones will be a hit-or-a-miss with audiences.

This film has okay photography; many shots will appear dark and hazed-out, while some of the fights use some annoying shaky-camera moves. Editing is not bad though. Acting is serviceable; Gerald Butler plays the role of a tough burdened hero really well, and is awesome to watch. Writing is serviceable as well. This production uses okay sets, props, and costumes, but also sports some weak SFX. Music has its moments.

I expect most audiences will find this film too absurd, overblown, derivative, shallow, and pushy. Regardless, I loved the film for tapping into all the same driving forces that makes my other favorite action movies so great. If you enjoy films like Air Force One, the Die Hard series, either of the Under Siege movies, or anything like that, then this one should be right up your alley too.

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

Recommendation: For action junkies.

[King Troll]

42
10/10

[Abdrewes]

how could you reccomend such an ugly, drab piece of Shlock (you clearly expressed why, but I'm in disbelief). I hated every second of it.

I'm in my seat right now for Oblivion. If I enjoyed Tron:L for what it was (a shallow piece of eye candy), I should be able to enjoy this. If nothing else, it'll further convince me Kosinski should just be a production designer

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by King Troll

42
10/10

For reals?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

how could you reccomend such an ugly, drab piece of Shlock (you clearly expressed why, but I'm in disbelief). I hated every second of it.

At least I like it better than Star Trek V. I was about ready to defend that one...but nah. It is pretty gaudy.

In other news, I turned on the TV and found Beavis and Butthead Do America. Beavis and Butthead take over the White House. The parallels are striking.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

At least I like it better than Star Trek V. I was about ready to defend that one...but nah. It is pretty gaudy.

In other news, I turned on the TV and found Beavis and Butthead Do America. Beavis and Butthead take over the White House. The parallels are striking.

I wrote a mini review of The Olympian has Fallen, but Will Rise about a month ago, I had to stop myself at three or four paragraphs because it became pure hyperbole.

Yeah, I plan on revisiting the final 20 minutes of Star Trek V, because its insanely stupid. I reccomend everybody who likes sooo bad it's good movies to check it out (at least the final reel). I don't even know where to begin with that one.

I did, however loooooove ST II-IV. I especially loved the fourth one. It's not as spectacular as Khan, but its every bit as entertaining and witty.

[SpartanX]

The Amazing Spider-Man

Okay. This wasn't spectacular, this wasn't the Ultimate spiderman film, and it certainly wasn't- amazing. It was just..good. There are some flaws- like how they changed Uncle Ben's death scene. I thought that was stupid.

There are some things they improved on over the Raimi films. Andrew Garfield is a great Spiderman, and Emma Stone is a great Gwen Stacey. And unlike Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, they had genuine chemistry.
The Amazing Spiderman is also much more true to the comics, Spidey has some smart-ass comedic lines, and Gwen Stacy is the first love interest, not Mary Jane.

Overall I think this is a very solid Spiderman film. This may be more true to the source material, but I prefer the first 2 Raimi Spiderman films. This film is no Dark Knight Rises or Avengers, but I think most of us can agree that The Amazing Spiderman is better than a piece of turd like Spiderman 3.

B

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Correct

Always nice to see Diesel take about a minute out of his day to come on and just approve a random review.

[Abdrewes]

Oblivion

Whatever talent Director Joseph Kosinski has as a visual artist, he has significantly less in choosing thought provoking scripts. Oblivion is ostensibly a post apocalyptic thriller that desperately tried to convince this viewer of its worth. All the while, I was taking mental notes of its influences.

2001: A Space Oddysey, The Omega Man, La Jettee, planet of the Apes, Star Wars, The Matrix, Moon, Blade Runner and Logan's Run come immediately to mind. The problem isn't that it wears its influences on its sleeve, the problem
Is that it never seeks to transcend or comment on them. This is science fiction at its most hollow and uninspired. The fact that it has a contemplative pace doesn't make it any more thoughtful than those Michael Bay epics that we love to hate on. If anything, I congratulate Bay (circa Armageddon, The Island, to be specific) because 1) he's much less self serious and navel gazing and 2) The compositions are more potent.

Tom Cruise delivers one of the most lackluster performances of his career, but then again maybe I'm being especially harsh because the emotional through line of the film was reminiscent of one if the great science fiction films La Jetee. Speaking of Chris Marker's film, it accomplishes more in 27 minutes than Kosinski can in 130. Nearly all the supporting cast is wasted: Olga Kurylenko's ethereal beauty is only skin deep as her character holds little interest. A cigar smoking (boy, isn't that original) Morgan Freeman could have been replaced by any actor with a couple wrinkles. And most egregious is the waste of Zoe Bell, whom was built for this role. Her stunt and leading work in Tarantino's Kill Bill saga and Death Proof showed she has the punch for a white knuckled post-apocalyptic thriller. Given the proper handling, she would have had the badass persona to upstage Mad Max himself.

I have no problem with slow burn, spare science fiction, (2001, Blade Runner and Solaris are all personal favorites) only slow burn films that merely imitate the real thing. Sure, the cinematography is resplendent, but the last thing that can be said about Kosinski's futuristic vision is that it is original. I guess if you recycle old ideas into a slick, shiny, portentous veneer, it may be more palatable, but it doesn't mask it's hollow core.

Ultimately this film has neither the high flying thrills of Top Gun or the smarts of Minority Report. I think you'd be better off renting either one of those or one of the aforementioned science fiction films in paragraph #2. There's nothing worse than a film that has the look, but nothing resembling smarts. Shane Carruth is probably writhing in pain over the missed opportunity. What science fiction needs today is less gadgets and more brains. Hopefully Alfonso Cuaron and Neill Blomkamp will have the final word on Science Fiction circa 2013.

[jvince]

Ikiru (1952)
dir. Akira Kurosawa

The Good: Brilliant story and message. Incredible cinematography. Miki Odagiri.

The Bad: Slow; Drags quite a bit. Uneven. Messy. Heavy-handed. Outdated acting, especially from lead actor Takashi Shimura.

The Bottom Line: I really like what this film has to say. I just wish it was executed much better. Worth seeing at least once.

[legendarymatt92]

Reuniting the cast of the acclaimed Lord of the Rings franchise, The Hobbit tackles Tolkien's earliest, and not-so-detailed, venture into Middle-Earth in the hopes of continuing the series' highs with another loveable hobbit and another perilous journey...


The Good Points: Incredible realisation of the World we've grown so accustomed to. Tremendous and grand visual style befitting the excellent storyline (which, in my opinion, is much better and more accessible than the ones that have come before it). Jackson's direction, which still has wonderful hints of his darkly-comic cinematic past. Freeman's performance, which over-shadows the whole cast (with the exception of Serkis' improved Gollum) and proves that he was exactly the right choice for the role. Epic action sequences and (mostly) emotionally-fulfilling characters. The ending.

The Bad Points: Overwhelming (and at times suffocating) familarity. Overlong and, for stretches, monotonous and wearying; the source material doesn't quite fit the length the filmmakers are trying to achieve from it, and it ends up feeling quite forced and contrived. The final act feels an exercise in excess with no real respect for Tolkien's work. The notorious 48 frames-per-second "scandal". The ending.


It's undeniably charming and spectacular, with enough explosive action sequences and well-written characters to fill out the majority of its extended running time, but The Hobbit is hindered by its overly-familiar setting and bombastic approach to the source material. It certainly won't win over any doubters of the series but, for those who can't get enough of Middle-Earth, there's certainly enough here to sate appetites.

7/10

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by killowertz

always nice to see diesel take about a minute out of his day to come on and just approve a random review.

Seal of Approval 2.jpg

[BJKH]

Here is my review for Django Unchained:

Django Unchained Review

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Attachment 63082

*sniffles* The good old days...

[Romulus]

Saw my first 2013 films within the past week.

Trance

I'm a very big Danny Boyle fan, but this is by far his weakest effort since The Beach. While it doesn't venture into that level of horridness, it's a pretty mediocre film. The writing is the true downfall here, as the story goes a little too convoluted for it's own good. The visuals, like any Boyle film, are fantastic and the acting for the most part is fine. It just isn't a very memorable film by any means.

2.5/5

The Place Beyond the Pines

This has been my best experience in theaters since The Tree of Life. I know that's very high praise, but not watching any trailers or going in not knowing anything was one of the best things I could have done. I honestly believe this film has the potential to be looked back on and analyzed for years to come. Admittedly, there are a lot that this film explores, such as the morality of two men when it comes to their family and how they deal with it, the lack of a father figure in life and how it affects you, etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg--there's an abundance of themes in here (which some find to be a fault). The film is very dark but highly rewarding, and one of the few films that's kept me thinking about it non-stop since I saw it. The cast is one of the high points of the film as well... everyone does a great job.

[Show spoiler]Minus Gosling's hilarious voice when he screams

. Bradley Cooper is quickly growing on me with this film and Silver Linings, hopefully he opts for more films like this instead The Hangover.

I wish could type more about this, but I severely messed one of my fingers up... and the more I try to type the more it bleeds. But did anyone else see this movie? Would love to hear thoughts.

Also, I give it a 4.5/5. Only complaints being some of Gosling's acting and it being slightly too long.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Imposter.

This is a cool documentary.

The storytelling is really well done, but that doesnt hold a candle to the story itself.



It just keeps revealing more and more creepy stuff. I dont want to say anything more about the story. If you have an interest in seeing a documentary about missing people, identity theft, impersonation, family trauma/drama and international crime investigation, then see this film.

A UK-based film magazine, Total Film, had this to say, "Creepier than Catfish and as cinematic as Man On Wire, this is an unnerving story immaculately told." I'd say that was spot on.

Warning: Read nothing about the film before seeing it.

4.5/5

Probably one of the best documentaries I've seen in recent years. Incredibly intense, gripping, and as you say--totally unnerving. I watched it at a University I was visiting with a friend and we had about 10 people stop by to watch it. Shame it didn't even get an Academy Award nomination.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Saw my first 2013 films within the past week.

Trance

I'm a very big Danny Boyle fan, but this is by far his weakest effort since The Beach. While it doesn't venture into that level of horridness, it's a pretty mediocre film. The writing is the true downfall here, as the story goes a little too convoluted for it's own good. The visuals, like any Boyle film, are fantastic and the acting for the most part is fine. It just isn't a very memorable film by any means.

2.5/5

The Place Beyond the Pines

This has been my best experience in theaters since The Tree of Life. I know that's very high praise, but not watching any trailers or going in not knowing anything was one of the best things I could have done. I honestly believe this film has the potential to be looked back on and analyzed for years to come. Admittedly, there are a lot that this film explores, such as the morality of two men when it comes to their family and how they deal with it, the lack of a father figure in life and how it affects you, etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg--there's an abundance of themes in here (which some find to be a fault). The film is very dark but highly rewarding, and one of the few films that's kept me thinking about it non-stop since I saw it. The cast is one of the high points of the film as well... everyone does a great job.

[Show spoiler]Minus Gosling's hilarious voice when he screams

. Bradley Cooper is quickly growing on me with this film and Silver Linings, hopefully he opts for more films like this instead The Hangover.

I wish could type more about this, but I severely messed one of my fingers up... and the more I try to type the more it bleeds. But did anyone else see this movie? Would love to hear thoughts.

Also, I give it a 4.5/5. Only complaints being some of Gosling's acting and it being slightly too long.

Agree with both reviews, I enjoyed Trance but only as a one time thing, it's stylish and loose, but the film as a whole is just a bit of a mess.

Place Beyond The Pines is worth watching just for the amount of film you get. But my major problem is that weak third act, forgetting that it's rather contrived (which isn't such a big problem) it feels a little more unbalanced and misguided in which way it was going, while the second act felt like a different film and story with loose connections to the first act, the third feels like it's trying to repeat but instead tries to resolve both narratives satisfyingly as well and it just becomes overwhelming. But it's never bad, just disappointing considering the very very very strong first two acts.