The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Checked out Fast and Furious 6, pretty disappointed after the really enjoyable fifth film we get a pretty dull one here, I just think the soul Juistin Lin brought to the series is gone, although the action is no less comedically awesome and the script is still as solid as ever:

"He's in Spain!"
"That's in a different country"

The real question is...how much will I enjoy it?

[Abdrewes]

As for Fast Six, as long as Gina Carano gets a decent amount of screen time, I'll be happy

[menaceuk]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The real question is...how much will I enjoy it?

Apart from a few facepalm worthy moments it is pretty fun and enjoyable. The action is Solid, although the Comedy leaves a lot to be desired. The New Baddy is good IMO and Luke Evans does a pretty good job in that role.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

As for Fast Six, as long as Gina Carano gets a decent amount of screen time, I'll be happy

She does have a few decent scenes.

I really wish though that people would recognize that this chick is not a good actress and that once she starts doing fighting scenes she absolutely rocks.

[Foggy]

^^^ I thought Luke Evans was naff, he was like a typical sneering villain who couldn't be bothered to sneer so he was just cold.

Looking forward to the next films villain though.

[jvince]

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
dir. Nicholas Meyer

The Good: Fantastic score by James Horner. Impressive set designs and practical effects, especially considering this was shot on a limited budget.

The Bad: Hammy, unintentionally funny acting, with William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban as the main offenders. Dialogue often has characters stating the obvious. Story isn't engrossing. Villain isn't that threatening.

The Bottom Line: Wrath of Khan is cheesy, dated, and feels like a TV movie, but it has its charms.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
dir. Nicholas Meyer

The Good: Fantastic score by James Horner. Impressive set designs and practical effects, especially considering this was shot on a limited budget.

The Bad: Hammy, unintentionally funny acting, with William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban as the main offenders. Dialogue often has characters stating the obvious. Story isn't engrossing. Villain isn't that threatening.

The Bottom Line: Wrath of Khan is cheesy, dated, and feels like a TV movie, but it has its charms.

All the ham and cheese should be a "good thing."

I still give the film the edge for its characters, themes, and iconic scenes. Can't deny that it is dated though.

Now that you've seen this and the new film,

[Show spoiler]which one did you like better: Spock's death, or Kirk's death?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by menaceuk

She does have a few decent scenes.

I really wish though that people would recognize that this chick is not a good actress and that once she starts doing fighting scenes she absolutely rocks.

I think she's a perfect fit for action films.

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest random selection: Bringing Out the Dead

I can't even begin to imagine the stress and burden paramedics must go through, having to jump on every life or death emergency, having to contend with crazy people getting themselves hurt all the time, and ultimately having to determine who lives and who dies. Bringing Out the Dead pretty much emphasizes all these aspects, underscoring the manic stress and haunting guilt the main character experiences in his efforts to save lives.

There are a few caveats, because it will come off as something messy and disappointing to certain viewers. With the premise of a medic contending with ghosts, I initially thought this was a supernatural thriller along similar lines to The Sixth Sense. It totally isn't; it's actually more comparable to Taxi Driver, in the sense that Bringing Out the Dead focuses on one alienated character becoming disillusioned in a scuzzy city setting. In spite of that, it also lacks a straightforward narrative. It's one of those movies where the plot goes all over the place and never really settles on one specific conflict or aspect, and this can be quite off-putting for viewers who are used to seeing one complete storytelling experience (and I usually fall into this crowd; it took me at least two viewings to realize the value of this film).

This film is laid out as a series of episodic encounters, following the main character across a few days on the job. He responds to several emergency calls, often times with lives at stake, but always overshadowed by the malice and cruelty of the city. Drug dealers, junkies, prostitutes, the homeless, the desperate, the insane, the sick, all fall under the medics' late night watches. The film carries a dark and brooding tone that always underscores the misery of people in pain.

At the same time, however, the film can become manic and crazy. Some of the film's most entertaining moments show the characters high-strung and wired, racing around in the ambulance (and later, they cause some damage). At times, the film gets pretty funny, thanks partly to the main character's sardonic remarks (one of my favorites being "where are the band-aids? This IS an ambulance, isn't it?!" ). There's a couple of scenes where the main character challenges his boss to fire him, but the boss just replies "I'll fire you tomorrow, I promise." There's the gruff cop in the hospital who sternly warns people "don't make me take off my sunglasses!" I think one of my favorite scenes involves the medics going to a goth club, where they revive an unconscious dude literally named "I.B. Bangin"; in an evangelist fashion, one of the medics has all these punks hold hands and praise "I.B. Bangin!" Even though the film's drama becomes quite dark and serious, it's moments like these that made it even more interesting to me; it makes the film a fuller, more even experience, and it helped keep my interest more.

As mentioned already, the film doesn't really have a straightforward story to tell. It's pretty mixed up, as the medics race around and meet the same characters over and over again. Through everything the protagonist goes through, however, the film does develop a decent story arc regarding the guilt he feels, always haunted by the lives he could not save, and the film overall becomes a personal journey for absolution. Whether or not he finds it hinges on his continuous interactions with a certain patient he helped bring in. In the end, it's a strong character study, reinforced with decent narration and strong thematic undertones.

The film looks quite drab, but with remarkable effect. Many shots appear very stylish, with lots of interesting camera angles (including some that go sideways or upside-down), and some remarkably surreal imagery at key spots. Acting is great: Nicholas Cage can get crazy with his role at times, but he also shows remarkable nuance and emotion as the main character, and this might be one of his best performances of his career. Patricia Arquette has interesting nuances of her own, while John Goodman, Tom Sizemore, and Ving Rhames add some much-needed variety and color to the mix. Writing is good. This production uses some good, real-looking sets, props, and costumes. What few special effects there are look effective. Music is used very liberally: there are lots of blues and rock playing in most scenes, and it helps.

This is a film that seems to get better the more I see it. It's actually a bit of a shame that I never see it mentioned anywhere, never see it played on TV, never see people talking about it...it's clearly a forgotten and under-appreciated piece of work, and I think it's worth a look.

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

Recommendation: Give it a try.

-----

This is one of the last few DVDs I have that I'm wanting a Blu-Ray for. I halfway wonder if it's Criterion-worthy, since they've done at least one Martin Scorsese film before, but otherwise, it seems quite unlikely.

[Al_The_Strange]

Also, last night I watched The Adventures of Tintin

I've never read the original Tintin comics, but even I can recognize that charming cartoon character with the big round head, the small tuft of blonde hair, and the cute white dog at his side. It has been decades since the character's genesis, but even today, he proves to be just as endearing as ever, thanks to this 2011 computer-animated film.

The Adventures of Tintin offers a heck of an adventure, with loads of eye candy for audiences of all ages. Most of the film is comprised of action setpieces that are really inventive and involved; it's almost like a vaudeville act, with characters tumbling, falling, flying, and colliding with each other, resulting in even more crazy damage, more problematic situations, and sometimes inducing some decent laughter. One of the film's most awe-inspiring scenes is a continuous shot, lasting for what must be a full five minutes or so, with the camera tracking Tintin and the Captain riding through a town, chasing animals, with buildings getting wrecked all around them. The timing and choreography of each scene is so precise, it's brilliantly entertaining. The film suffers very little drag in between, and there's always enough elements of danger and peril to keep the stakes high. At the same time, it's never too high or scary for younger audiences. If there's anything to complain about, it's just that it's almost too much. Many scenes strain believability, and can become very absurd.

In spite of the relentless action, however, the film's story is left with limited room to breathe. It jumps right into the mystery and adventure, without any introduction to the characters or the world they inhabit. It isn't hard to catch onto things as the film goes along, but there's no real background to Tintin, and it makes him flat and rather less interesting. It's the mystery element that drives this plot, but even then, the mystery is quite predictable and thinly developed. Really, the movie is built on the action, with one scene leading to another; it's serviceable and fun, but nothing terribly deep or compelling.

This film has top-notch animation quality. The amount of detail, precision, and movement is phenomenal; there are moments that look so real, it's amazing. This film has decent voice-acting; it can be a bit tiresome to listen to Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, but Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg, and everybody else provides quality performances. Writing is not bad, and it generally gets the job done, but some more depth would have been welcome. This production uses some very awesome-looking settings, locations, props, costumes, and character designs. John Williams' music score is not bad.

This film definitely entertains with its imaginative adventure sequences, and it comes close to replicating the same kind of energy and tone as a typical Indiana Jones picture. It is a film that audiences of all ages can enjoy, even if the story is a bit lacking. Recommended.

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

Recommendation: Sure.

[jvince]

Upstream Color (2013)
dir. Shane Carruth

The Good: Stellar performance from lead actress Amy Seimetz. Unique, creative plot and structure. Rich in themes and ideas. Has a mesmerizing quality to it. So fascinating from the get-go, 96 minutes just fly by. Hypnotic, ethereal synthetic score. Somewhat easy to follow (more so than the director's feature debut, Primer). This was shot with just a Panasonic Lumix GH2? What? Shane Carruth wrote, directed, shot, starred in, edited, composed for, and distributed this all on his own? Holy shit. Respect.

The Bad: Kris (Seimetz) killing The Sampler felt out of character. It also bothers me that the authorities didn't go looking for him (nor did she seem to think about that beforehand).

The Bottom Line: What an impressive sophomore effort by Carruth. It took nine years, but it's a confident improvement that's worth the wait. Much like The Thief, Upstream Color put this viewer in a trance and took my money, but that's fine.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

Upstream Color (2013)
dir. Shane Carruth

Oh man, I have this downloaded and am just waiting for the right time to watch it. I'm glad it's not as heavy as Primer, though.

I know it's hard to compare, but which would you say is the better film?

[jvince]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Oh man, I have this downloaded and am just waiting for the right time to watch it. I'm glad it's not as heavy as Primer, though.

I know it's hard to compare, but which would you say is the better film?

Upstream, imo. Like I said, it feels more confident and it's just an improvement all around, with characters you could care for.

I haven't rewatched Primer though. I'll revisit it sometime. Upstream, I feel, could go up to a 4/5 upon second viewing.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

All the ham and cheese should be a "good thing."

I still give the film the edge for its characters, themes, and iconic scenes. Can't deny that it is dated though.

Now that you've seen this and the new film,

[Show spoiler]which one did you like better: Spock's death, or Kirk's death?

I actually liked

[Show spoiler]Kirk's death

better. Both have predictable resolutions, so it's a push in that respect. Nimoy is always great, but Shatner's acting is a little iffy to me. On the other hand, Pine and Quinto have been consistently solid, imo. Plus, the new one reminded me of

[Show spoiler]Lost, which was pretty good when it came to those kinds of scenes

.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Upstream Color (2013)
dir. Shane Carruth

The Good: Stellar performance from lead actress Amy Seimetz. Unique, creative plot and structure. Rich in themes and ideas. Has a mesmerizing quality to it. So fascinating from the get-go, 96 minutes just fly by. Hypnotic, ethereal synthetic score. Somewhat easy to follow (more so than the director's feature debut, Primer). This was shot with just a Panasonic Lumix GH2? What? Shane Carruth wrote, directed, shot, starred in, edited, composed for, and distributed this all on his own? Holy shit. Respect.

The Bad: Kris (Seimetz) killing The Sampler felt out of character. It also bothers me that the authorities didn't go looking for him (nor did she seem to think about that beforehand).

The Bottom Line: What an impressive sophomore effort by Carruth. It took nine years, but it's a confident improvement that's worth the wait. Much like The Thief, Upstream Color put this viewer in a trance and took my money, but that's fine.

I hope this gets a decent UK release (unless it's up on iTunes over here already, then I'm all for it as soon as I return from Uni)

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by jvince

Upstream, imo. Like I said, it feels more confident and it's just an improvement all around, with characters you could care for.

I haven't rewatched Primer though. I'll revisit it sometime. Upstream, I feel, could go up to a 4/5 upon second viewing.

Oh yeah, I must have just glossed over the word "improvement" when I first read your review, sorry!

That was exactly what I felt Primer missed; beyond all the calculated science and grand, ambitious ideas, it never really had characters you understood or cared for at its heart, which I assume is how you feel, too?

[Jowiko96]

Moulin Rouge! (2001) - Directed By Baz Luhrmann

"No Laws. No Limits. One Rule. Never Fall In Love"

The film that brought the movie musical genre back from the grave is still a big, grand spectacle of "Spectacular" proportions to this day since its original theatrical release 12 years eariler.

Moulin Rouge! is a 2001 romantic musical film, written and directed by Baz Luhrmann (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet, The Great Gatsby) and starring Ewan McGregor (Star Wars Prequels, Trainspotting) and Nicole Kidman (The Others, Eyes Wide Shut). The year is 1899 and our main protagonist Christian (Ewan McGregor) moves from London to Paris to become a writer. We then meet Satine, a star courtesan at the world - famous Moulin Rouge cabaret, who wishes to become a real actress. Once they first meet, she mistakes him for a famous duke (Richard Roxburgh) and ends up falling in love with him instead. The story sounds very cliché and boring from this point of view, but Luhrmann does the impossible and takes a seemingly straightforward plot and makes it overly complicated and extremely fast paced, something that is rarely done in cinema, and does it brilliantly.

Baz Luhrmann is known for a quick cuts and "music-video" feel throughout all of his films and this one is no exception. The first twenty minutes of the film while in the Moulin Rouge, the editing is cut very quick and sped up to have the feeling of being in a dance club or rave. Once the film slows down to normal speed about an hour into the film, the craftsmanship of the sets and costumes truly come into play. The production design is incredible! From the extravagant Moulin Rouge set to all of the Hindu - inspired costumes during the final musical number, everything about the look and style of the film is flat-out gorgeous.

The lead actors, Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, are both wonderful as the two-doomed romantic lovers. But, its in fact Jim Broadbent who steals the show as Harold Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge. His musical number of Madonna's "Like A Virgin" with The Duke is one of the most hilarious and (if not more absurd) scenes in the film. The film is also a jukebox musical, so all of the songs sung by the characters in the film are all well-known pop songs like Elton John's "Your Song" and Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Surprisingly, this style of musical actually really works and adds a nice modern twist to a classic formula.

Is Moulin Rouge! overdramatic and cheesy? Yes, but that's the point. The film not only is a nice homage to musicals from the past, but also pays respect to many operas and Shakespearean plays, where there is action, romance, comedy, and tragedy, all in one expansive show. Is the film a masterpiece? Not at all and will indefinitely put people in either the "Love-it or Hate-it" crowd. At times, the acting is stiff (Richard Roxburgh as The Duke comes to mind) and is very distracting and Baz's directing may also annoy many people with his multiple quick cuts and swooshing of the camera. But, if you can put these aside, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Moulin Rouge! is not perfect and has it's flaws, but for what it truely is, the film is an exceedingly enjoyable comeback to the long-forgone movie musical genre, along with being a sweet love letter to theater also.

4.5/5

[legendarymatt92]

"Up-top, they always win. And down-below, we always fail."

The Good Points: Visually arresting and suitably ambitious. Uniquely audacious. Incredible use of the narrative's space and time. Interesting, if not overly subtle, comment on class divisions.

The Bad Points: Terrible opening narration. Stilted, and often-times disingenuous, dialogue. Emotionally and narratively lacking -- feels like a short film that has been wrongly expanded and stretched much too long. Makes huge efforts to bring them to the forefront of the story, but is too vague and sweeping in its social commentaries. Frequent plot holes and inconsistencies, and contradicts its own "rules" in the final act. Extremely heavy-handed symbolism.


It may be a visual wonder to behold, but, rather strangely, Upside Down has nothing intelligent, important or even interesting to say beyond some not-so-subtle attempts at social commentary and a generic and uninspired love-story.

3.5/10

[Diesel]

Finally have a complete day off with nothing that has to be done...so its Fast and Furious marathon time

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jvince

I actually liked

[Show spoiler]Kirk's death

better. Both have predictable resolutions, so it's a push in that respect. Nimoy is always great, but Shatner's acting is a little iffy to me. On the other hand, Pine and Quinto have been consistently solid, imo. Plus, the new one reminded me of

[Show spoiler]Lost, which was pretty good when it came to those kinds of scenes

.

Those are good points. I also think that, because you didn't have

[Show spoiler]TWOK weighing you down, you were able to take it for what it is, and that's probably for the better.

Since I do have a stronger attachment to TWOK, I think comparing the two movies took me out of the moment. After seeing Spock's death so many times, and knowing the lines, it felt like a bit of a rehash to see history being repeated and hearing the same lines, even though everything was flipped.

In the end, I'm still not sure which one I prefer; I think they're both good in their own little ways. Will probably have to go with Kirk's death though, because it served the story better.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest random selection: Bringing Out the Dead

[Show spoiler]I can't even begin to imagine the stress and burden paramedics must go through, having to jump on every life or death emergency, having to contend with crazy people getting themselves hurt all the time, and ultimately having to determine who lives and who dies. Bringing Out the Dead pretty much emphasizes all these aspects, underscoring the manic stress and haunting guilt the main character experiences in his efforts to save lives.

There are a few caveats, because it will come off as something messy and disappointing to certain viewers. With the premise of a medic contending with ghosts, I initially thought this was a supernatural thriller along similar lines to The Sixth Sense. It totally isn't; it's actually more comparable to Taxi Driver, in the sense that Bringing Out the Dead focuses on one alienated character becoming disillusioned in a scuzzy city setting. In spite of that, it also lacks a straightforward narrative. It's one of those movies where the plot goes all over the place and never really settles on one specific conflict or aspect, and this can be quite off-putting for viewers who are used to seeing one complete storytelling experience (and I usually fall into this crowd; it took me at least two viewings to realize the value of this film).

This film is laid out as a series of episodic encounters, following the main character across a few days on the job. He responds to several emergency calls, often times with lives at stake, but always overshadowed by the malice and cruelty of the city. Drug dealers, junkies, prostitutes, the homeless, the desperate, the insane, the sick, all fall under the medics' late night watches. The film carries a dark and brooding tone that always underscores the misery of people in pain.

At the same time, however, the film can become manic and crazy. Some of the film's most entertaining moments show the characters high-strung and wired, racing around in the ambulance (and later, they cause some damage). At times, the film gets pretty funny, thanks partly to the main character's sardonic remarks (one of my favorites being "where are the band-aids? This IS an ambulance, isn't it?!" ). There's a couple of scenes where the main character challenges his boss to fire him, but the boss just replies "I'll fire you tomorrow, I promise." There's the gruff cop in the hospital who sternly warns people "don't make me take off my sunglasses!" I think one of my favorite scenes involves the medics going to a goth club, where they revive an unconscious dude literally named "I.B. Bangin"; in an evangelist fashion, one of the medics has all these punks hold hands and praise "I.B. Bangin!" Even though the film's drama becomes quite dark and serious, it's moments like these that made it even more interesting to me; it makes the film a fuller, more even experience, and it helped keep my interest more.

As mentioned already, the film doesn't really have a straightforward story to tell. It's pretty mixed up, as the medics race around and meet the same characters over and over again. Through everything the protagonist goes through, however, the film does develop a decent story arc regarding the guilt he feels, always haunted by the lives he could not save, and the film overall becomes a personal journey for absolution. Whether or not he finds it hinges on his continuous interactions with a certain patient he helped bring in. In the end, it's a strong character study, reinforced with decent narration and strong thematic undertones.

The film looks quite drab, but with remarkable effect. Many shots appear very stylish, with lots of interesting camera angles (including some that go sideways or upside-down), and some remarkably surreal imagery at key spots. Acting is great: Nicholas Cage can get crazy with his role at times, but he also shows remarkable nuance and emotion as the main character, and this might be one of his best performances of his career. Patricia Arquette has interesting nuances of her own, while John Goodman, Tom Sizemore, and Ving Rhames add some much-needed variety and color to the mix. Writing is good. This production uses some good, real-looking sets, props, and costumes. What few special effects there are look effective. Music is used very liberally: there are lots of blues and rock playing in most scenes, and it helps.

This is a film that seems to get better the more I see it. It's actually a bit of a shame that I never see it mentioned anywhere, never see it played on TV, never see people talking about it...it's clearly a forgotten and under-appreciated piece of work, and I think it's worth a look.

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

Recommendation: Give it a try.

-----

This is one of the last few DVDs I have that I'm wanting a Blu-Ray for. I halfway wonder if it's Criterion-worthy, since they've done at least one Martin Scorsese film before, but otherwise, it seems quite unlikely.

I'm going to give this a try. Added to queue.