The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[legendarymatt92]

"Sometimes you need to do something bad to stop you from doing something worse."

Stoker is, quite undeniably, a film about intricacies; it's an examination of the small building blocks, the cinematic techniques, that work to produce the bigger picture, the whole. The most interesting, yet strangely uncomfortable, component is the eclectic, harrowing imagery that permeates almost every scene of the film; whether it's the spider crawling up India's leg,

[Show spoiler]or the disturbing scene where she masturbates over someone's death

, it's these little moments that prove the most troubling and, in effect, are conducive to the emotional manipulation of the audience. Chan-wook has made no effort to hide his cinematic obsession with ominous, often brutal narratives, populated by ambiguous, mysterious characters, and Stoker is the perfect continuation of those themes (provided, in part, by Wentworth Miller, who wrote the script), built in an entirely different landscape.

Another significant aspect of the film is the inauspicious tone -- Chan-wook's sumptuous sensuality is often at odds with the sinister machinations of the plot; every image, every detail, is highlighted, noticed and looked upon, yet there's the ominous feeling by the end that nothing we've seen matters, that no one can control what fate has in store for us. It's certainly an unsettling, often uncomfortable tone, but it's required to be, since the characters themselves -- and the universe they populate -- isn't regulated by the same rules or morals as ours: it's a strange, unforgiving world where the relationships between a family have disintegrated into a psycho-sexual nightmare and where no social norms are followed or even accepted. It's a near-perfect analysis of a world, and characters, in turmoil, but who don't comprehend it.

That said, I don't believe everything in Stoker works well (or at all, in some cases). It's sometimes portentous to the point of ridiculing itself, and the characters are extremely hard to identify with because they're so extremely strange: they have no humour, no emotions, that you feel you can connect with, and it's hard to grasp the reasons why they frequently do things. Further than that, the plot feels as though it's simply a guise so that an elaborate character-study can occur because it never feels as though it goes anywhere. Often incidents happen and characters seem to forget about them completely in the next scene, which is both illogical and frustrating, and furthers the reasons you find it hard to identify with them.

What Stoker is, then, is something that's hard to define: it's a horror film without the pure fear, a thriller without the plot, and a romance without the consent. It's complicated and it's ambiguous, and it's one of the most frustrating films I've ever seen, but it's also beautiful, complex and sumptuous. For all its flaws, it's jaw-dropping visual style (with the dramatic sweeping shots and intense close-ups) provides a perfect window onto a world where nothing is what it seems, where excerpts of dialogue have multiple meanings and where symbolism is the key. It has great performances from the ever-wonderful Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode and Nicole Kidman, and a tone so wonderfully unhinged and insidious that a one-time viewing just isn't enough to capture the whole atmosphere fairly. For anyone who likes their films surreal and creepy, this is for you.

7.5/10

[Foggy]

Dude, put a spoiler around that

[Show spoiler]masterbation

scene. And I still think the film is great, certainly one of the two films to come out this year that I could call the "best" I've seen this year, although that is more due to how weak the year has been over the quality of the film. It's just a B-Movie Chiller except it's told through symbolism and themes over general plot.

[Riddhi2011]

(This review may contain spoilers) (Re-Posted from here-
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t=man+of+steel)

Saw Man of Steel today! It was a packed auditorium. Went with a friend, he had a few friends with him as well. Now I got the seat to the extreme right- the last one, so I was a bit sad about not getting the best position, but anyway onto the review-

THE GOOD STUFF- Its a very good Superman movie, as a re-imagining that is!
Kaal-El's origin is deeply probed and dealt with.

- The reference to Corporation's (in reality) strip-mining our Earth's core for fuels and minerals, leading to a gradual destabilizing of our Core, which scientists are beginning to understand only now: the fact that its becoming a dangerous place for us to live-in is rightly hinted at!

- Russel Crowe makes for a strong Jor-El, in fact, the Krypton prologue is quite similar to Superman the animated adventures from WB[/SPOILER]. Most of the REALLY INSPIRING lines in the movie come from him, and the lines are SOLID; POWERFUL!!! There is a unspoken subtext of welling emotions between Jor-El and Kal-El [Show spoiler] , and that's really did strike me!

-Henry Cavill is very good as Kal-El/Clark/Superman. I personally feel though, that he could've done better!

-The best part of the movie is the relationship between Clark and Jonathan Kent (played with great subtlety, depth and power by the wonderful Kevin Costner)! This is the part that can make anybody cry. Their bond is the strongest in the film!

-Diane Lane is also good as Ma Kent, she exudes a strength, which I have always imagined the character to possess, right from the days I first laid my eyes of The Man of Steel by John Byrne(comics).She and Cavill also have a good bond!

-Amy Adams is good as Lois Lane (more on that below...)

- Lawrence Fishburne is really good as Perry White, never was I distracted or felt conscious of his performance. He was seamless- A no-nonsense Editor-in-chief! Rebecca Buller as Jenny Olsen was wonderful and sweet!
And Christina Wren gets a great line and makes the most of it- "I just think he's kinda hot."

-The Cinematography by Amir Mokri is very good in certain frames, and ordinary in others. Epic mostly, but never failing to be evocative and uplifting in certain others.

-I absolutely liked the subtle homages to some not-so famous panels from DC Comics versions of Superman, especially to John Byrnes' Man of Steel!

-Also The story is Really GOOD! The BEST origin story yet!

Now the things that BOTHERED ME-

-There are many emotional moments in the film, infact the entire movie is very emotional. But many of those moments are developed but do not have a satisfying closure-
BELOW-
-When H'Raka (as far as I remember ), the faithful Dragon-like creature of Jor-El gets fatally wounded and crash land on Jor-El's balcony, we don't see Jor-El even look at it, even for a small moment. I know its a plot device, but remember the Ukranian Ironbelly from Deathly Hallows part 2, that was also a plot device, but the emotions it generated in the audience had a satisfying closure. Here the scene quickly cuts away.
-In fact the cuts in the movie are odd enough to destroy many emotional buildups, which are essential since this movie promises it! In general the pacing of the movie, especially towards the beginning felt off, as if they wanted to skim off Krypton as fast as possible. I guess they were scared of boring the audience. But because of the pace, and the lack of emotional build-up in many scenes, the movie felt like a 90 mins picture, rather than 143 mins! It feels that the director was just going from one scene to another, the connection between scenes felt a bit forced, and made me conscious of it which a good movie doesn't. It didn't feel seamless!

-Ayelet Zurer didn't make me care much for Lara Lor-Van at all! She was so metallic, so lacing in warmth for a mother who has given birth to a son in the natural way for the first time in a thousand years. Where were her emotions that a mother would display at the prospect of parting with her only child??
She was very ordinary and uninspiring! Even Susannah York was like this in Superman (1978), ordinary and dry! The most emotionally powerful Lara has been an animated incarnation of hers- Superman:The Last Son of Krypton (animated)!

-Michael Shannon was OK as ZOD, but nothing striking or scene-stealing about him, really! He was good in the role, and he did the best he could with the material he was given! But I kept waiting for some Shannon Unleashed moment in vain. The Best scene of Shannon closing his eyes and screaming "NO!!!" which was in the trailer, was cut from the film. Its really criminal to let such a moment go away! I'm sure it would've been iconic, as it was in the trailers. Such a shame!
-Antje Traue as Faora was effective, she was absolutely ruthless and cold, like a rock! Sarah Douglas as Ursa in Superman 2(1980) was slightly better in my opinion as she got to express a bigger range of emotions!

-Amy Adams despite being very much Lois Lane-is, looks aged and way more maturer tha Henry Cavill. Lois Lane looks more like Clark's older sister than his girlfriend. Amy Adams looks more livelier and younger in the TV Interviews. Also she looked slightly chubbier, but that's besides the point! Its a minor issue, though I have no idea what'd happen when Man of Steel 3 releases 10 years later. She'll be 50 and Henry would still be 40. On Amy's side, age may not be too kind!

_Also I did not feel their chemistry in a significant way. Did not feel their connection a lot. She is presented as more mature than Clark, and a lot protective of him- as I said, they have that older sister-younger SUPER-brother vibe.

-The movie gets a little convoluted and twisted in the end, which didn't gel too well with the flow of the movie, in my opinion.

-The fight sequences were overlong, and were becoming monotonous. There are quite a few references to the fight between Christopher Reeve's Superman and Terrence Stamp's Zod from Superman 2! Hardcore Superman(1978) fans shouldn't fail to notice them!

The Rest of the cast - not much to talk about!

-The Music-
LARGELY UNINSPIRING, overly repetitive, very ordinary! Where is the grandeur that his past scores had, be it The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons, or Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of The Carribean, The Last Samurai,
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, or The Dark Knight compositions???
The magic Zimmer touch is very much lacking here. There is noting I heard in the cinema that's worth remembering much, that I hadn't heard in the trailers before. There are some softer evocative flows though which are good, but they're not touching enough! This is a movie that should be carried shoulder-to-shoulder by its musical compositions, and here it fails to shine!

-The last thing that bugged me was the blatant Americanism-
When Superman destroys a Drone (the ones that are killing innocent people in the Islamic nations everyday) General Swanwick asks him- "How do we know you won't go, in the future, against American interest?" To which Superman replies-"General, I was raised here in Kansas. I am 'bout as American as they get." Now I always saw Superman as Universal, not just standing for one-country. If the American Government becomes evil(which I am worried is a not-so-distant possibility>Drones, Surveillance of public, targeting its own citizens, poking their nose into other countries in the name of the so-called "War on Terror"???). Superman is an Universal force for good, not a flag bearer for the American-Government(which it ironically did in another movie where he fought against ZOD)
- THE 3D-
Moderate depth, not much pop. Overall, a soothing watch, not distracting. I recommend it because I liked it. The 3D doesn't draw attention to it! But its definitely not a strong 3D conversion. But the moderate level is appropriate for a large-scale movie like this because the 3D helps immerse the audiences in the story rather than the Visuals! But anybody watching the 2D won't miss too much, I think, though I haven't watched it in that format! The flying scenes are the ones that benefit slightly from the 3d conversion, but as I said before, the extra dimension has a comfy, soothing effect and not distracting at all!

-THE INSPIRING ELEMENT-
The greatest gift of the movie, for everyone is that it is Very inspiring, filled with HOPE, and POSITIVE!
Watch it and you'll feel good, if you're receptive to goodness that is!
At its fundamental level its NOT a movie about a MESSIAH sent from BEYOND,
but the BASIC GOODNESS, VIRTUE, and BEAUTY that ALL OF US have within US! And WE CAN ALL harness those forces to make a change for the better, to our lives and to those of others!
Plus it tries to make the sensitive person aware of issues dogging our own Mother Earth- The ruthless Corporatisation and commercialisation of our world,
the destruction of Nature,
the Strip-Mining of the planets natural resources to the point where the Earth's Core has become unstable already- Frequency of Tsunamis, earthquakes, other natural disasters!
The damage to the atmosphere and the poisoning of the water sources are showing its devastating symptoms already- The Hurricanes etc.

Man of Steel is a cautionary tale (the Doom of Krypton), and a wake-up-call for all of us to be a force of change in a world that's being RAPED right in front of our eyes by GREEDY Corporate Mobsters and even The Governments of more or less each and every country, who are corrupted by Power! Just as
Clark harnesses the KAL-EL or GOD within ( The Hebrew meaning of "EL" is GOD!)
Thus a Child from the house of "GOD" who is raised as a HUMAN becomes the greatest force of GOOD and HOPE in this world.
Similarly, we are all created in "GOD's IMAGE".
So We like KAL, Created in GOD's image, are BORN as HUMANs, and we can equally be a similar force of GOOD for OUR WORLD. We just have to harness the "GOD" within us!
ITS Time to Shake away our apathy and take Charge of our lives, with renewed vigour and ZEAL, and above all LOVE and POSITIVITY, so that we can provide the MUCH NEEDED HOPE to those who are week.
So That we can show them the way. So that we can Inspire them to come out of their closets and join us in the Sun!
We'll Stumble, we'll fall, but we'll RISE nonetheless!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Dude, put a spoiler around that

[Show spoiler]masterbation

scene. And I still think the film is great, certainly one of the two films to come out this year that I could call the "best" I've seen this year, although that is more due to how weak the year has been over the quality of the film. It's just a B-Movie Chiller except it's told through symbolism and themes over general plot.

By the way, I think you forgave way too much in POS...I mean MOS

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

By the way, I think you forgave way too much in POS...I mean MOS

I think so too, yet I still managed to piss off the hardcore fans of the film in the thread just by posting my review.

I think it was just a case that it never angered me, it was just that I never got into because at every turn there was something clunky or unimpressive to me. Once the action started I was finally like "You know what, just relax now and watch the endless amount of destruction and chaos because I might as well give up on the film around it".

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Dude, put a spoiler around that

[Show spoiler]masterbation

scene. And I still think the film is great, certainly one of the two films to come out this year that I could call the "best" I've seen this year, although that is more due to how weak the year has been over the quality of the film. It's just a B-Movie Chiller except it's told through symbolism and themes over general plot.

Done I meant to when I was writing it, just obviously forgot. Cheers for pointing it out mate.

Yeah, it's certainly not a masterpiece, but it's pretty effective at what it strives for, and it has an interesting approach in the proficient symbolism it utilises. I'm looking forward Chan-wook's next English language film -- hopefully he can build on this and produce some great, weird pieces.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

By the way, I think you forgave way too much in POS...I mean MOS

Did you reply to me, I think so, though you've quoted someone else's post but anyaway! I think by MOS you mean Man of Steel. Otherwise tell me I'll delete this post.
Yes, I decided to forgive the flaws of Man of Steel because of its positivity! The movie has inspired me, and that's what I wanted to convey!I'd recommend everyone to go watch it, and I hope you can get inspired too. It certainly has that power, despite not being a brilliant movie!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Did you reply to me, I think so, though you've quoted someone else's post but anyaway! Yes, I decided to forgive the flaws of Man of Steel because of its positivity! The movie has inspired me, and that's what I wanted to convey! Go watch it, and I hope you can get inspired to. It certainly has that power, despite not being a brilliant movie!

Abdrewes has seen it...

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Abdrewes has seen it...

Yes I saw it, and have corrected my post a bit!

[jvince]

Man of Steel (2013)
dir. Zack Snyder

The Good: Amazing original theme by Hans Zimmer. Henry Cavill ain't a bad Superman. Diane Lane is also great in her limited screen time as Martha Kent. The climactic battle between Superman and Zod is kind of cool (although it could have been shorter and less repetitive). The final flashback (is the only one that) works effectively.

The Bad: Haphazard editing; story keeps jumping back and forth in time. Uneven pacing. Attempts at drama and characterization come off rushed and hollow. Lazily contrived (Could someone give a good explanation why Clark wasn't the one who saved the dog?). It also wouldn't have hurt to slip in a few lighthearted moments here and there; it's too gloomy and serious. The all-star cast is wasted, most notably Kevin Costner and Amy Adams. Either she was miscast or not given much to do (or both). There was just no spark between her and Cavill. Cinematography is mostly generic and peculiarly devoid of Snyder's visual style. The overuse of snap zooms annoyed the shit out of me (they're more distracting than Abrams' lens flares which don't bother me at all). Shaky cam made the action blurry and hard to follow. Some of the special effects look iffy. Lame, in-your-face product placements (Really? And no, I don't want to eat at a dirty-ass IHOP, thank you). Likely to piss off die-hard comic book fans.

The Bottom Line: And so the streak of underwhelming superhero movies continues. Man of Steel is an ambitious epic that ultimately falls short; a film that strives for heart yet ironically lacks one. Still, MOS is no POS; it's just one big "meh." Here's hoping they get it right next time around. Somebody's bound to make a proper Superman movie, right?

[Foggy]

I think you and me are on the same page with the one JVince, there's moments that work but the whole structure is lousy.

[Riddhi2011]

I agree with both of you, it has some great moments, but overall the structure is weak, and not really seamless. Many scenes, especially the potentially emotional ones are rushed, and the fight sequences are unnecessarily extended!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Superman returns is waaaay better than this piece of junk. Seriously, the writing is WORSE than fast 6. Pure exposition from the first minute on, and basically everybody's chasing a McGuffin causing all kinds of collateral damage. I didn't think the film was entertaining for one second. Once the final battle cribs 911 imagery for effect, I went from disliking it to having utter contempt for it.

Don't even get me started on the cinematography. JJ Anrams looks like Kubrick in comparison

Charting my response:

When it was merely dull and over cranked: 4/10

When we started getting loads of product placement (sears, 711, IHOP): 3/10

When the final battle reached Transformers levels of irresponsibility and fetishization: 2/10

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Jvinces Abdrewes reviews have been becoming more and more hyperbolic.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Hey bro, I didn't review Man of Steel (I reviewed Before Midnight instead) Maybe Jvince has just been watching poorer movies lately. Green Lantern, Man of Steel, White House Down, etc....so I guess the hyperbole comes with the territory

It's funny, cuz I posted that just before Man of Steel, now I'm the hyperbolic one

[Abdrewes]

As a review of a third part in a series replete with cliffhangers and call backs, what is to follow will contain spoilers of the past two entries, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset.

Richard Linklater's 'Before' series has consistently dived into the existential yearnings of love through circular philosophizing and the sharing of past experience. Before Midnight does not diverge too much from the set formula as Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) engage in calm strolls through centuries old European towns (in this case Greece and Crete) while engaging in meaningful musing captured by a back-pedaling, Steadicam "two-shot," often in shallow focus. The look of Linklater's films will never be regarded with the same affinity as his 90's American peers (most notably Paul Thomas Anderson and David Fincher), but are by no means a "deal breaker." Linklater is arguably the finest, recent student of Sydney Lumet's adage that "good style is unseen style." Through his use of long takes and simple camera set-ups, he allows the actors to dominate the frame, in turn rendering dialogue and performance key.

After the suitably ambiguous final shot of Before Sunset,—the entry I find most affecting because of the directness in which it deals with memory and fate—we learn that Jesse has left the unseen woman he married in the nine year interim between the two encounters with Celine. The boy he had as a result of the union is about to start high school, so Jesse now has strong feelings towards a move back to the states. The time they have been apart, due to accepting Celine's wishes to stay in Paris after their twin daughter's birth, has taken a toll.

To complicate matters, Celine has been considering accepting a Government job in the environmental sector, where she can have the most positive effect, so she is naturally opposed to Jesse's crescendoing suggestions. As they spend the waning hours of their holiday in Greece, fine at the home of a successful English author and stroll the streets of Crete, a combination of these mid-life issues and more will simmer to a boil—the climax being a heated argument at what was supposed to be a pleasant respite from the children at a three star hotel. The confidence Linklater places in Ethan Hawke's and Julie Delpy's ability to internalize and thus deliver such flowery, erudite dialogue, yields terrific results. This is one of the more thoughtful and believable films about a couple navigating the crossroads in their forties.

Each film in the series explores a different facet of love. Before Sunrise deals with love at first sight. The couple is free to project their most unrealistic traits on each other. They share a single night, so naturally the personal details they reveal are the most flattering and least revealing. Often what they do not say reveals more to the audience. The next film, Before Sunset, fully explores the implications of a chance encounter nine years later. Thus, it deals explicitly with recapturing a memory most sweet and the sensation of being in the presence of a seemingly deterministic magnetizing force, or fate. Finally, Before Midnight builds off its predecessors in different, but equally satisfying ways. The butterflies have gone, so the couple must now weather storms of coital frustration, the regret of past mistakes, and managing a family. Without a doubt it is the most complex, and possibly rewarding, film in the series.

It's difficult to predict where exactly future cineastes will place Richard Linklater among American directors of his generation. Other than the heavy handed arm chair philosophizing,—which hit a peak with his two interpolated rotoscope animations, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly—his films are often unpretentious and always explicit in their methodology. Furthermore, one could argue the aforementioned philosophizing reveal the dissatisfied and disoriented psyches of his characters. The truth, according to Linklater, lies in savor img the present. Whether it be a momentous argument, observing a sunset with your lover ("still there,..still there"), or discreetly nourishing on your sleeping daughter's half eaten green apple on a long road trip, he suggests we take note. Everyday details accrue into a whole of human experience, in neglecting them, a part of ourselves is lost.

½

[jvince]

Battleship (2012)
dir. Peter Berg

The Good: Surprisingly tolerable. I was expecting some rage-inducing awfulness, but I must admit it's rather entertaining at times. Rihanna ain't a bad actress. The buoy grid battle is oddly compelling.

The Bad: Slow start. Shitty dialogue. Shittier story. Mediocre acting. The subplot with the girlfriend (Brooklyn Decker), the double amputee, and the unfunny nerd should've been scrapped; they're terrible.

The Bottom Line: This is a movie starring Rihanna and Brooklyn Decker... based on a board game... where the characters play an actual game of Battleship with aliens... and a freaking museum does some Fast & Furious drifting type of shit with a bunch of geezers aboard. Turn your brain off, put your dunce cap on, sit in the corner, and enjoy, you crazy masochist.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jvince

Battleship (2012)
dir. Peter Berg

The Good: Surprisingly tolerable. I was expecting some rage-inducing awfulness, but I must admit it's rather entertaining at times. Rihanna ain't a bad actress. The buoy grid battle is oddly compelling.

The Bad: Slow start. Shitty dialogue. Shittier story. Mediocre acting. The subplot with the girlfriend (Brooklyn Decker), the double amputee, and the unfunny nerd should've been scrapped; they're terrible.

The Bottom Line: This is a movie starring Rihanna and Brooklyn Decker... based on a board game... where the characters play an actual game of Battleship with aliens... and a freaking museum does some Fast & Furious drifting type of shit with a bunch of geezers aboard. Turn your brain off, put your dunce cap on, sit in the corner, and enjoy, you crazy masochist.

But if they got rid of the sub plot we wouldn't of had the classic cinematic moment where the guy with no legs punches one of the aliens teeth out.

[jhiggy23]

Badlands:

4 (out of 4)


I've reviewed this film multiple times on here, so I'll refrain from doing so again. The blu-ray is quite amazing in its picture quality, however.


________________________________________________

Hook:

3 (out of 4)

Considered one of Spielberg's worst films, I still find it to be an enjoyable film (nothing more, nothing less). It's certainly absurd and is rather limited in a thematic sense, but decent enough.


___________________________________________

The Cranes are Flying:

3 (out of 4)

Mikhail Kalatozov's best known film, about Soviet lovers during WWII. I thought the film was quite good and although it clearly meant to convey Soviet ideals, it didn't do so in such a way that it detracted from the film itself. I personally prefer Letter Never Sent much more, due to that film's incredible black and white photography.


_______________________________________________

Purple Noon:

Both my girlfriend and I liked this film a lot, even though we both disliked The Talented Mr. Ripley. Alain Delon is a major reason why, as he just has charisma to spare. I really liked the visual nature of the film, from its use of colors to its locales (such as the Italian island of Ischia, where my girlfriend's family is from). Another reason this film is far superior to Minghella's version is that it doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't try to over-analyze Tom Ripley. I definitely intend to purchase this during the Criterion sale. I think the PQ is also underrated.

________________________________________________

Risky Business:

3.5 (out of 4)

A film I've always enjoyed, but liked even more this most recent time. I think Cruise is excellent and does a nice job of conveying a believable character arc.

_________________________________________________

Anatomy of a Murder:

3.5 (out of 4)

Great script, although not as good as Judgment at Nuremberg. As a prosecutor myself, I enjoyed the legal banter in the film. Many consider this the most accurate courtroom movie out there, which honestly isn't saying too much; the film has numerous inaccuracies. However, the eloquence of the script and the performances really keep the film entertaining even at its 170 minute runtime. I also liked the open ended nature of the case itself.

__________________________________________________ ____

Before Sunrise:

3 (out of 4)

My least favorite of the trilogy but still quite good. I remember watching this three years ago and not liking it much. The main reason is that although I found the film authentic, I didn't find the dialogue to be particularly interesting. I still don't, but because of the two subsequent films I have a greater appreciation for this film.

________________________________________________

Before Sunset:

3.5 (out of 4)

My favorite of the series. I love the real-time way the film is shot, clocking in at 80 minutes. I found the dialogue much more interesting here and I really enjoyed Linklater's tracking shots. I also liked that he didn't film scenes at the famous Paris landmarks, because the common streets there are incredibly charming by themselves (when I took a solo trip there, I loved wandering down random streets). Lastly, I think this film has the two best moments of the entire trilogy: (1) the car scene and (2) the ending.

____________________________________________

Before Midnight:

3.5 (out of 4)

Certainly not as happy as the previous two films, but just as realistic (if not more). This film has the best acting of the series by Hawke and Delpy, and the hotel room scene is one of the best written argument scenes I've ever come across. I'm a bit undecided on how I want to view the ending, but I'm glad it was done the way it was.

[Abdrewes]

my favorite is Before Sunset too!

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest blind-buy: Iron Sky

In movies, Earth has been invaded by aliens, vampires, ghosts, monsters, supermen, gods, plants, zombies, and so much more! However, Iron Sky presents one more fantastic and deliciously ludicrous invasion story: this time Earth is invaded...by Nazis from the moon! That's right, the Third Reich is alive and well on the dark side of the moon, still harboring a ridiculously over-the-top fanaticism for a culture and ideology that is now over sixty years dead. As silly and cheesy as this concept is, the film plays things out with a firm tongue-in-cheek attitude, and with plenty of satire. At the film's last act, however, we are treated to a splendid space battle involving stellar zeppelins hauling moon rocks, and Nazis flying around in flying saucers!

As you can surmise, the story is as silly as they come, going so far as to toss in every German or WWII reference the filmmakers could think of to emphasize the scope and scale of the ridiculousness (with spaceships named Siegfried and Gotterdaemmerung, with Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries playing during every battle scene, Hitler himself would have been proud). Characters aren't terribly deep or moving, but there is definitely a strong political agenda that surfaces; with one character looking a little too much like Sarah Palin, and a spaceship blatantly called the George W Bush, the film really strikes a blow to the right wing, harping on resource depletion and senseless warfare.

The film looks rather cheap. Its photography and editing generally get the job done. Acting and writing are incredibly zany and over-the-top. This production uses okay-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are pretty mixed; some of them look terrible, but they are still better than other films I've seen, and I really admire the detail and imagination that went into them. The music used in this film is really weird, but also really cool.

Iron Sky is one of the funniest, silliest, and more thrilling B-movies I've seen. For anybody with a good sense of humor, it comes recommended.

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

Recommendation: Sure.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds decent.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4.5/5