The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Have you checked out The Blue Umbrella short? Some true uncanny valley stuff going on there.

Yes indeed.

[jvince]

12 Years a Slave (2013)
dir. Steve McQueen

The Good: Lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor is superb as the wrongfully enslaved Solomon Northup. Heck, everyone in this film is incredible: Cumberbatch, Nyong'o, Dano, Pitt -- everyone. But the clear standout here is Director Steve McQueen's frequent collaborator Michael Fassbender. The man steals the show and runs away with it. He just runs the **** away with it. His portrayal of the downright despicable slave owner Edwin Epps gives Nazi Fiennes a run for his money. Epps is one utterly deplorable piece of shit. The worst. What a tour-de-force performance from Fassbender. He's a shoo-in for Best Supporting Actor. The cinematography by Sean Bobbitt is gorgeous and Hans Zimmer's score packs one hell of an emotional punch. All in all, 12 Years a Slave seems like a strong Oscar contender.

The Bad: McQueen, for some reason, felt the need to repeatedly shove the oppression and brutality in your face, and as a result, the characterizations suffer. Most of the villains -- apart from Fassbender's Epps -- are simply reduced to moustache-twirling caricatures. And speaking of villains, Sarah Paulson abruptly throwing a ****ing crystal decanter straight at someone's face takes the "Oh, Shit!" Moment of the Year Award. I'll never be able to look at Sarah Paulson the same way again.

The Bottom Line: 12 Years a Slave is a undoubtedly a powerful, harrowing watch, but looking at all the talent involved, it seems like a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to be something even greater. You'll feel the lashes. You'll feel the desperation. You'll feel the decanter. But after the credits roll, you'll feel, "Hey, that was actually pretty darn good, but I don't know, it was kinda missing something..."

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

What Maise Knew



Really good story. Sad and happy. Great acting. Crappy, wealthy, flakey parents with a beautiful child. UGLY custody battle......

"You don't deserve her!!"

Film 4/5
PQ and AQ 4/5

Glad you liked it. It's still in my top 5 of the year. That kid was really amazing.

[jvince]

Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013)
dir. Abdellatif Kechiche

The Good: Two words: Adèle Exarchopoulos. Without a doubt, the most amazing performance you'll see this year. A breathtaking breakthrough turn that will surely have heads turning and offers coming left and right (and hopefully some well-deserved recognition as well). Exarchopoulos also has got to be one of the best criers I've ever seen. She will melt your heart. The dialogue is often engaging and the characterizations are rich and three-dimensional. The final act is simply a heartbreaking knockout, showcasing Exarchopoulos and co-star Léa Seydoux's acting prowesses.

The Bad: So, the sex scene. I know, I know, you're probably wondering, "What? Did he just put the sex scene under the bad category?" Scenes, for me, should add something, whether it's to advance the plot or to develop the characters and to make us, the audience, get to know them a bit more. The idea of the first sex scene is integral to the story, but it just goes on for too long—something around 8-10 minutes. There are actually three lesbian sex scenes in this film, and there's one (I don't remember if it's the second one or the third one) that gets it right. The rest border on hardcore porn. Another issue is that the film meanders... a lot. Talk. Talk. Pasta eating. ***** eating. Talk. Talk. Pasta eating. Fingering. Talk. Talk. Pasta eating. Scissoring. Three hours of all that. It gets rather repetitive and tedious. I'm aware that Kechiche was aiming for this certain rawness and realism. Now, I love slow-moving slice-of-life films too, but sometimes—nay, most of the time—capturing the mundane can be, well, mundane, and that's exactly what happens here. Not much, really. Blue is basically a 100-minute story in a three-hour movie.

The Bottom Line: Blue probably won't be winning any Oscars come March, but my gut tells me it'll be a very popular fap material. And hey, maybe it'll get some of those Anatomy Awards as consolation. Worth a look for Adèle Exarchopoulos incredible performance.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by jvince

12 Years a Slave (2013)
dir. Steve McQueen

[Show spoiler]

The Good: Lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor is superb as the wrongfully enslaved Solomon Northup. Heck, everyone in this film is incredible: Cumberbatch, Nyong'o, Dano, Pitt -- everyone. But the clear standout here is Director Steve McQueen's frequent collaborator Michael Fassbender. The man steals the show and runs away with it. He just runs the **** away with it. His portrayal of the downright despicable slave owner Edwin Epps gives Nazi Fiennes a run for his money. Epps is one utterly deplorable piece of shit. The worst. What a tour-de-force performance from Fassbender. He's a shoo-in for Best Supporting Actor. The cinematography by Sean Bobbitt is gorgeous and Hans Zimmer's score packs one hell of an emotional punch. All in all, 12 Years a Slave seems like a strong Oscar contender.

The Bad: McQueen, for some reason, felt the need to repeatedly shove the oppression and brutality in your face, and as a result, the characterizations suffer. Most of the villains -- apart from Fassbender's Epps -- are simply reduced to moustache-twirling caricatures. And speaking of villains, Sarah Paulson abruptly throwing a ****ing crystal decanter straight at someone's face takes the "Oh, Shit!" Moment of the Year Award. I'll never be able to look at Sarah Paulson the same way again.

The Bottom Line: 12 Years a Slave is a undoubtedly a powerful, harrowing watch, but looking at all the talent involved, it seems like a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to be something even greater. You'll feel the lashes. You'll feel the desperation. You'll feel the decanter. But after the credits roll, you'll feel, "Hey, that was actually pretty darn good, but I don't know, it was kinda missing something..."

Too bad you didn't find it an amazing and heartbreaking masterpiece like I did, JVince. 100% my favorite film of the year and one of the finest cinematic achievements of all time IMO!

Great review as always though, I love coming on here and reading of what you thought on some of these films.

Silent.

[Spirit Zero]

Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)

Another dodgy film title and arguably Mel Brooks last decent spoof after a long career in film led to a brief spell in the theatre as things started to wind down. In fact this was Brooks last major film in which he starred and directed.

Now I must admit that when I first saw the film I didn't really like it much, the whole thing looked cheap, tacky and wasn't overly funny. But the strangest thing, like with other Brooks films, I have found myself appreciating it a lot more over the years.

Like his other spoofs this has pot shots at various classic vampire films over the years but the main target is of course the Lugosi gem. Its a real blend of styles which kinda works and kinda doesn't. Naturally the film is created with an old time appearance reminiscent of the 1931 film, but at the same time it has those great cheesy cardboard cutout visuals of Hammer horrors.

I personally think the film has a lot in common with 'Spaceballs' in the fact that it looks hammy but at the same time it also has some neat effects. The main negative aspect of the film in my opinion was most of the sets are obviously sets which is a bit off putting I can't deny and there is a distinct lack of scenic spooky landscapes or creepy castles which is a real shame. I realise the film is suppose to be low rent as it were but all Dracula flicks need some nice eerie real locations and spooky castles. Despite that there are some nice touches here and there, the low budget bat transformations of Dracula are kinda cute, lots of little homages and visual gags, everything has been over done, forced and blown out of proportions on purpose which is amusing, costumes are suitably stuffy and set the mood well, plus the casting is actually quite good.

Now I know you can't expect top rate acting in a Brooks spoof but there are still some nice little performances here. The best for me being MacNicol as the whimpering stir crazy 'Renfield'. The character does get a bit too loony tunes as the film progresses but initially I really like his stiff upper lipped Englishman when he first travels to see Dracula. The best scene must be when Renfield sits down with 'Dr Seward' for tea and ends up eating bugs. Not only that but the pronunciation of raspberries by Harvey korman in this sequence is hilarious.

Even though he has top billing the late great Nielsen wasn't the best thing here (the combination of him and Brooks together in films came too late in the day unfortunately). Bottom line Nielsen is miscast as Dracula, he doesn't look the part and he doesn't sound the part, but that's why he is perfect in the role. The fact he's completely wrong for the role makes it work, its just funny that he doesn't come across as a Dracula kind of guy and I think Nielsen knows that and uses it. Whilst watching I can't help but think Leslie is actually trying in certain scenes bless him, he does appear to actually go for it and really put on his best Lugosi/Dracula performance just for the hell of it, he's enjoying his chance in the role. End of the day only Nielsen could get away with this kind of deliberate miscasting, he was (and still is) such a popular lovable guy.

Brooks himself enters the fray as 'Van Helsing' and fits the role pretty well with his mock German, Jewish accent. In a sense he's playing the same characters as 'President Skroob' and 'Frederick Bronski' with similar facial hair but not as dumb. Yeah sure we've seen it all before with Brooks but if you're a fan then you won't complain. His best scene must be the stake through the heart sequence, simple but effective.

I do get the impression that Brooks is merely working his way through every genre he can and this film simply ticks a box on the list...pretty much like 'Men in Tights'. I also get the feeling he is trying to recapture the same level of success he achieved with 'Young Frankenstein' and the gothic horror genre. To be brutally honest most of the jokes have been used before in previous works but at least its not as childish as 'Men in Tights' and does offer some adult content. I won't say this parody is a great film, it doesn't really come close to previous Brooks films but its still mildly amusing and a must for fanboys.

6/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Spirit Zero

Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)

[Show spoiler]
Another dodgy film title and arguably Mel Brooks last decent spoof after a long career in film led to a brief spell in the theatre as things started to wind down. In fact this was Brooks last major film in which he starred and directed.

Now I must admit that when I first saw the film I didn't really like it much, the whole thing looked cheap, tacky and wasn't overly funny. But the strangest thing, like with other Brooks films, I have found myself appreciating it a lot more over the years.

Like his other spoofs this has pot shots at various classic vampire films over the years but the main target is of course the Lugosi gem. Its a real blend of styles which kinda works and kinda doesn't. Naturally the film is created with an old time appearance reminiscent of the 1931 film, but at the same time it has those great cheesy cardboard cutout visuals of Hammer horrors.

I personally think the film has a lot in common with 'Spaceballs' in the fact that it looks hammy but at the same time it also has some neat effects. The main negative aspect of the film in my opinion was most of the sets are obviously sets which is a bit off putting I can't deny and there is a distinct lack of scenic spooky landscapes or creepy castles which is a real shame. I realise the film is suppose to be low rent as it were but all Dracula flicks need some nice eerie real locations and spooky castles. Despite that there are some nice touches here and there, the low budget bat transformations of Dracula are kinda cute, lots of little homages and visual gags, everything has been over done, forced and blown out of proportions on purpose which is amusing, costumes are suitably stuffy and set the mood well, plus the casting is actually quite good.

Now I know you can't expect top rate acting in a Brooks spoof but there are still some nice little performances here. The best for me being MacNicol as the whimpering stir crazy 'Renfield'. The character does get a bit too loony tunes as the film progresses but initially I really like his stiff upper lipped Englishman when he first travels to see Dracula. The best scene must be when Renfield sits down with 'Dr Seward' for tea and ends up eating bugs. Not only that but the pronunciation of raspberries by Harvey korman in this sequence is hilarious.

Even though he has top billing the late great Nielsen wasn't the best thing here (the combination of him and Brooks together in films came too late in the day unfortunately). Bottom line Nielsen is miscast as Dracula, he doesn't look the part and he doesn't sound the part, but that's why he is perfect in the role. The fact he's completely wrong for the role makes it work, its just funny that he doesn't come across as a Dracula kind of guy and I think Nielsen knows that and uses it. Whilst watching I can't help but think Leslie is actually trying in certain scenes bless him, he does appear to actually go for it and really put on his best Lugosi/Dracula performance just for the hell of it, he's enjoying his chance in the role. End of the day only Nielsen could get away with this kind of deliberate miscasting, he was (and still is) such a popular lovable guy.

Brooks himself enters the fray as 'Van Helsing' and fits the role pretty well with his mock German, Jewish accent. In a sense he's playing the same characters as 'President Skroob' and 'Frederick Bronski' with similar facial hair but not as dumb. Yeah sure we've seen it all before with Brooks but if you're a fan then you won't complain. His best scene must be the stake through the heart sequence, simple but effective.

I do get the impression that Brooks is merely working his way through every genre he can and this film simply ticks a box on the list...pretty much like 'Men in Tights'. I also get the feeling he is trying to recapture the same level of success he achieved with 'Young Frankenstein' and the gothic horror genre. To be brutally honest most of the jokes have been used before in previous works but at least its not as childish as 'Men in Tights' and does offer some adult content. I won't say this parody is a great film, it doesn't really come close to previous Brooks films but its still mildly amusing and a must for fanboys.

6/10

This film has its moments.

[jvince]

The Right Stuff (1983)
dir. Philip Kaufman

The Good: The Right Stuff #1: Bill Conti's (Rocky) soaring, patriotic score. You can't turn that glorious piece of music up and not feel like a ****ing superhero. Without a doubt, one of the greatest soundtracks ever composed. The Right Stuff #2: The insanely awesome ensemble cast: Sam Shepard, Scott Glenn, Ed Harris, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, Barbara Hershey, Kim Stanley, Veronica Cartwright, Lance Henriksen, Scott Wilson, Kathy Baker, Jeff Goldblum, and Harry Shearer all together in one movie? Hot. Damn. The Right Stuff #3: Caleb Deschanel's exquisite cinematography. The Right Stuff #4: It's hilarious and quotable. You got so many great lines such as "Dear Lord, please don't let me **** up;" "The issue here ain't *****. The issue here is monkey;" "Request permission to relieve bladder;" "Our Germans are better than their Germans;" "No bucks, no Buck Rogers;" "****ing A, bubba;" and "Gladiolas!" The Right Stuff #5: The brand-new digital transfer boasts amazing picture and sound. It's almost as if it was just released today.

The Bad: Has a bit of trouble juggling all of its characters.

The Bottom Line: This is one damn fine space movie. The Right Stuff is the real deal.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SilentxStatik24

Too bad you didn't find it an amazing and heartbreaking masterpiece like I did, JVince. 100% my favorite film of the year and one of the finest cinematic achievements of all time IMO!

Great review as always though, I love coming on here and reading of what you thought on some of these films.

Silent.

Thanks, Silent.

I thought the film was pretty good. I liked it.

[jvince]

The Book Thief (2013)
dir. Brian Percival

The Good: What happened to those old school family movies? You know, the ones that had just the right amount of lightheartedness and darkness. The ones that even the older audience can appreciate and not feel like smashing the screen. The ones that feel like an actual film. They just disappeared. Nowhere to be found. A lost art. Extinct. Things went wrong and the genre changed for the worse. It just regressed and degenerated and that's a shame. Nowadays, live-action PG movies are mostly lazy, misguided cash grabs that are insulting even to their target audience. Before, we had awesome films like Mary Poppins, E.T., The Princess Bride, A Christmas Story, A Little Princess, Poltergeist. Now, kids get crap like Judy Moody, The Tooth Fairy, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua. What happened? And in a blast from the past, The Book Thief hits the big screen in a last-ditch attempt to revive the dying breed. The story is set in Nazi Germany and it revolves around a young girl named Liesel (wonderfully played by Sophie Nelisse) whom Death (voiced by Roger Allam) takes an interest in, out of all the countless souls he's come across. Brian Percival's (Downton Abbey) adaptation of the award-winning bestseller by Markus Zusak is nothing flashy nor does it reek of Oscar bait. It's simply intimate, competent, and assured. The acting is strong across the board. 13-year-old Sophie Nelisse does a great job in the lead role. She won't be winning any awards for her portrayal, but she displays the talent, control, and maturity rarely seen in others her age. This girl is a star in the making. Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson are fantastic (as usual) as Liesel's foster parents. The two are a joy to watch, filled to the brim with charm. Ben Schnetzer, Nico Liersch, and Barbara Auer also deliver endearing supporting turns. And, of course, I can't write a review of this film without mentioning John Williams' moving musical score--his first non-Spielberg soundtrack in eight years. The ending is also perfect. Cold-hearted cynics be damned.

The Bad: Some might find it a bit slow and long.

The Bottom Line: The Book Thief is like Life Is Beautiful, only better in that it doesn't overdose on schmaltz and whimsy. It's simply a good, old-fashioned family film. Go see it.

[Abdrewes]

2011's Margin Call was a Wall Street thriller anchored by a talented ensemble cast and a screenplay so talky that one would have suspected David Mamet had a hand in it. Dialogue alone imbued life to its characters, and kept the knotty plot unspooling at a furious rate. Director J.C. Chandler's follow up is nothing if not a radical gear shift in methodology. Focused around one character and practically no dialogue, All is Lost is a survival adventure like no other.

At 4:50 PM on the 13th of July, a sailor finds himself 1700 nautical miles adrift from Indonesia's Sumatra Straits with only a half-day's ration of food. All is lost, it seems, as he writes his farewell letter which opens on the words, "I tried." We cut to the morning eight days earlier where the misfortunes of the man, only known to us as "Our Man," began. Typically, this would undercut suspense, but All is Lost so fully envelopes us in his state of urgency that as we watch our septuagenarian hero devise drastic measures to save himself, the half-reveal lingers somewhere in the back of the mind without pestering. When he attempts to dislodge from a wayward shipping container, it is as if it is happening for the first time. This is procedural-like documentation thorough enough to make Direct Cinema pioneer Robert Flaherty proud.

From there, we chart Our Man's attempts to repair the hole on the right side of the hull and pump water out of the cabin. With turbulent Indian Ocean nights yet to come, he has quite the voyage ahead of him. If any of this sounds like tedium with metaphysical heft grafted on for effect, that couldn't be further from the truth. Alongside the lack of dialogue, one of the most welcome surprises is the sheer absence of moments that aim to yank at your tear ducts or are there simply to provide Big Meaning and/or metaphor. Robert Redford doesn't talk to God or a volleyball adorned with a smiley face, he is a practical elderly man who has simply found himself in quite the terrible situation. At no point in the film will he "find himself" or stumble upon a grand epiphany. Thankfully, even the moment where his fate is revealed is understated.

Robert Redford deserves much of the credit for making this dramatically satisfying. Recalling his terrific work from forty years ago in Sydney Pollack's Jeremiah Johnson, he is completely believable as a wayward traveler who must utilize materials around him for his survival. As a seasoned pro, he knows exactly at what decibel to pitch his actions, and in which direction to level them. Part of what makes the film so successful is the voyeuristic aspect of it, so there is no trace that Redford is emoting for an audience, or that he is aware of one, he simply acts the way I would imagine one would in the situation. Redford perfectly understands his character and so do the filmmakers. They provide us only a glimpse at what type of man he is by the Bric-à-brac on display in his cabin as opposed to fleshing out his past history and personal life. The rule of "less is more" has never been more suitably applied.

Of all the down-to-Earth survival movies of recent years, All is Lost is the one that consistently makes all the right moves and that entails not going for the big, hammy, "this is my last recording" moment. When Redford tosses a pickle jar containing his farewell letter, it struck me as a mere courtesy to those who will be dealing with his death, not as a naked ploy for the audience's sympathies. All is Lost may be the least "cool" survival movie of recent times, but that is exactly what makes it one of the strongest. J.C. Chandler (also writer) could have gone for the easy layup with his sophomore feature, but instead strays way outside of his comfort zone (does he even have one?) by choosing a project that relies entirely on sounds and images for effect. DP Frank G. DeMarco documents only what is necessary to further the story. The sounds that envelope us are astounding as well. Accompanied by Alex Ebert's light symphonic score, the sounds of the wind batting upon the torn sail and the torrents that scheme to enter "The Virginia Jean" remind us that the Ocean is an unforgiving place. One which bears death upon all ill equipped to traverse its waters.

½

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

[Show spoiler]2011's Margin Call was a Wall Street thriller anchored ensemble cast and a screenplay so talky that one would have suspected David Mamet had a hand in it. Dialogue alone imbued life to its characters, and kept the knotty plot unspooling at a furious rate. J.C. Chandler's follow up is nothing if not a radical gear shift in methodology. Focused around one character and practically no dialogue, All is Lost is a survival adventure like no other.

At 4:50 PM on the 13th of July, a sailor is 1700 nautical miles away from Indonesia's Sumatra Straits with only a half-day's ration of food. All is lost, it seems, as he writes his farewell letter which opens on the words, "I tried." We cut to the morning eight days earlier where the misfortunes of the man--only to us as "Our Man"--began. Typically, this would undercut suspense, but All is Lost so fully envelopes us in the state of urgency that as we watch our septuagenarian hero make drastic measures to save himself, the half-reveal lingers somewhere in the back of the mind without pestering us. When he attempts to dislodge from a wayward shipping container, it is as if it is happening for the first time. This is procedural-like documentation thorough enough to make Direct Cinema pioneer Robert Flaherty proud.

From there, we chart Our Man's attempts to repair the hole on the right side of the hull and pump water out of the cabin. With turbulent Indian Ocean nights yet to come, he has quite the voyage ahead of him. If any of this sounds like tedium with metaphysical heft grafted on for effect, that couldn't be further from the truth. Alongside the lack of dialogue, one of the most welcome surprises is the sheer absence of moments that aim to yank at your tear ducts. Robert Redford doesn't talk to God or a volleyball adorned with a smiley face, he is a practical elderly man alone at sea who will not "find himself" or stumble upon a grand epiphany. Even the moment where his fate is revealed is understated.

Robert Redford deserves much of the credit for making this work. Recalling his terrific work from forty years ago in Sydney Pollack's Jeremiah Johnson, he is completely believable in as a wayward traveler who must utilize materials around him for his survival. As a seasoned pro, Redford knows exactly at what decibel to pitch his actions, and where to pitch them. Part of what makes the film so successful is the voyeuristic aspect of it, so there is no trace that Redford is emoting for an audience, or that he is aware of one, he simply acts the way I would imagine one would in the situation. Redford perfectly understands his character and so do the filmmakers. They provide us a believable glimpse at what type of man he is by the Bric-à-brac on display in the cabin. The rule of "less is more" has never been more suitably applied.

Of all the down-to-Earth survival movies of recent years, All is Lost is the one that consistently makes all the right moves and that entails not going for the big, hammy, "this is my last recording" moment. When Redford tosses the pickle jar containing his farewell letter, it struck me as a courtesy to those who will be dealing with his death, not as a naked ploy for the audience's sympathies. All is Lost may be the least "cool" survival movie of recent times, but that is exactly what makes it one of the strongest. J.C. Chandler (also writer) could have gone for the easy layup with his sophomore feature, but instead strays way outside of his comfort zone (does he even have one?) by choosing a project that relies entirely on sounds and images for effect. DP Frank G. DeMarco documents only what is necessary to further the story. The sounds that envelope us are astounding as well. Accompanied by Alex Ebert's light symphonic score, the sounds of the wind batting upon the torn sail and the torrents that scheme to enter "The Virginia Jean" remind us that the Ocean is an unforgiving place. One which bears death upon all ill equipped to traverse its waters.

½

Great review, Abdrewes! I am looking forward to checking it out!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SilentxStatik24

Great review, Abdrewes! I am looking forward to checking it out!

Thanks Silent! It's totally worth catching on the big screen if you get the chance.

[Spirit Zero]

Behind the Candelabra (2013)

Oh my shame on me, I actually thought this was a parody or spoof comedy about these extravagant Vegas performers like Siegfried and Roy hehe. Turns out this is actually a biopic of the ultra extravagant piano performer Liberace. The film is based on a book/memoir written by the young man Liberace fell for, Scott Thorson, and dissects his close relationship with the homosexual pianist. You may need sunglasses for some sequences within this film...high levels of glitter and sparkle warning!.

Spoiler alert (of sorts), if you're uncomfortable with homosexuality on screen then this film might not be for you. I was actually surprised at the level of gritty realism this film portrays, I wasn't expecting it, but sure enough Soderbergh doesn't beat around the bush. In all honesty you can tell straight away its gonna be edgy, the question is can you handle seeing a skinny makeup laden Michael Douglas and a chubby tarted up Damon going at it? oh and there's also a highly gay Scott Bakula looking like one of his 'Quantum Leap' characters...remember that?.

I know nothing of Liberace, I grew up when he was still around and big and I do recall seeing him on TV here and there as my folks did like him for his classical skills. After a a little research I was stunned to discover how accurate and well portrayed everyone was in the film. Douglas should be in line for an award of some kind for this performance, its only when you see the real Liberace and then you see Douglas that you realise how damn good he is. Of course he is imitating the man but his mannerisms, body movements/gestures and general overall idiosyncrasies or quirks are brilliantly conveyed. I won't deny it is kinda creepy to watch Douglas at times, his wiry, leathery reptilian-like looks covered in tonnes of glittery makeup whilst clad in some cringeworthy flamboyant attire that a fat Elvis wouldn't say no too...its enough to make you gag at times. Must say he looks terrible with the bald cap on and his aging flabby torso, yikes!.

Quick point: I have no idea how they did the live piano sequences but trust me it looks damn good. I'm sure Douglas isn't playing the piano but blimey it looks like he is! very impressive scenes.

At the same time Damon is also fantastic in his role and looks just like the real Thorson. I'm unsure if his mannerisms are the same as I found no real footage of the man but he looks the ticket. Again its creepy to watch Damon at times, the lavish makeup, camp behaviour, full blown kissing and tight sparkly revealing underwear...its all very errrm...homosexual. Not that that's a bad thing of course, its just an extreme eye opener to see these two fellas going at it and acting this way.

I did enjoy seeing how Liberace carried on I must admit, to see his previous bit of fluff whom he gets rid of for Damon's character. The way the previous bit of fluff knew exactly how Liberace behaved because he'd seen it all before and knew his time was up, he was old hat. I liked the rather camp house boy Liberace had around the mansion and the fact he knew about Liberace's devious ways, Dan Aykroyd's rather blunt and gruff manager character and a round of applause to Rob Lowe as the seedy slimy plastic surgeon/drug dealer.

'Hey Scott, why don't you stay outta my f**kin business, now give me back to Lee'

The level of narcissism shown by Liberace to actually have Thorson's face altered to look more like his own was pretty eerie really. The fact that Thorson agreed and the way everybody carries on about it in the film is like a car crash, you just can't look away!. Its in these sequences where Lowe really shines plus it shows us the indulgence and vanity shown by all involved. Yet despite that you do feel Liberace cared very much for Thorson, there was true love there. Unfortunately being involved in show business meant real feelings could get smothered very easily with egocentric behaviour...as displayed by Thorson at the end.

I think lavish and flamboyant are the key words here, everything about the film (and this man's life) is just that. The sets are tremendously well created and really show how this man lived, more eye openers folks!. All the costumes and props seem to have been recreated to the tiniest detail, not only that but sequences from his real shows appear to have been recreated too. If you check some of Liberace's You-Tube clips out you'll see how pinpoint these sequences have been made, I really can't falter anyone involved with this production.

The story is very familiar really, it could be any relationship between any two people male and female, a simple tale of mistrust, lying, promiscuity and wealth. Towards the end the film does become quite sad in all honesty, you do come to like Liberace and his squeaky tones, you know Thorson did care about him deep down and at the very end the gifted performer is given a nice send off and rightly so. You can see what will happen a mile away its very easy to predict all the way through, but the ride to get there is undeniably a show stopper.

9/10

[Spirit Zero]

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

The whole notion of the film has that cult comic book vibe and feels like a silly spin off from something else. It does sound like one of those cool ideas that you've heard about from the comic book world, that you'd think would be awesome as a film...but it probably won't ever get made, a bit like 'Freddy vs Jason vs Ash'.

Yet despite that this is one of those ideas that reads well on paper, would work well in comic book/graphic novel form, but for some reason hasn't translated that well onto film. The plot is fast n loose and unfortunately doesn't really give you much info. An aged Elvis living in a crappy retirement home (he swapped places with an Elvis impersonator to escape the limelight) must do battle with an ancient Egyptian mummy who is sucking the old folk dry of their souls. I use the word battle loosely.

It sounds friggin' awesome, then you read it stars Bruce Campbell as Elvis and things just get better and better. This could almost be some kind of weird alternative dimension for his 'Ash' character...if you really really try to think of it that way. It sounds ultra cool and seeing Campbell as an old Elvis (and young) is ultra cool, even though he kinda looks like Kevin Costner's Elvis impersonator from '3000 Miles to Graceland'. Its not an accurate depiction of Elvis of course, more of a comic book version with added Raimi-esque spice n dialog. Yep Campbell will forever be associated with his quirky Evil Dead hero character...especially in quirky horror comedies such as this.

The problem for me with the film is how slow it is and the fact nothing much really happens. There is a lot about Elvis and how he suffers in his old age, he reminisces about his fame and youth and generally moans a lot. At times it is amusing for sure but there comes a point when I just wanted something to actually happen. When it does it kinda feels unexplained and a bit of an anti climax really. The fact Elvis needs a zimmer frame (walker) to walk all the time restricts the films excitement potential also. The whole mummy side of it just isn't laid out right frankly, no real reasons for its occurrence, no proper closure, no reasons for its actions etc...its just there and dressed as a cowboy for some reason.

The film is also kinda drab looking throughout which is a bit depressing. I know that's part of the films story but I did yearn to see some brighter visuals and a bit more colour. I think they downplayed Elvis's room and the retirement home, it didn't need to be so shitty looking, old fashioned sure but not so shitty.

Eventually we come to the showdown at the end and I was kinda expecting something a bit special, it sorta builds up to it. But alas!!! its very weak and pretty mundane despite Campbell's verbal quips. Two old men, one in an electric wheelchair and the other who can hardly walk without a zimmer frame, both take on a mummy who also walks very very slowly and does not a lot (doesn't even look that good either). It doesn't sound too great does it, and in all honesty it isn't, its unique and quirky but ultimately a let down. The finale is sombre and acceptable but feels right admittedly.

This is how the entire film feels for me really, its a wicked idea and probably works much better as a graphic novel. Campbell looks good and sounds good as Elvis and saves the film completely, without him it would be B-movie trash, well the film is a B-movie really, a B-movie with Bruce Campbell in it. Overall I can see how this has become a total cult classic with its Evil Dead-esque cheap looking visuals and theme and I will give it plus points for that. On the other hand I do think director Coscarelli is riding on the coattails of the Evil Dead/Raimi franchise a bit too much.

'Don't make me use my stuff on ya, baby!'

6/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Thor: The Dark World

Thor - Norse God of thunder and perhaps one of the most surprising additions to Marvel lore - returns to his fantastic universe that blurs the line between ancient myth and science fiction. Kenneth Branaugh's film has always felt like a "good but not great" affair, so this sequel had nowhere to go but up.

Naturally, there are loads of great action scenes throughout the film, with Asgardians, humans, and evil dark elves fighting on land, sea, air, and space. Among the film's highlights, the elves' raid on Asgard is a fantastic sequence with spaceships zooming around the city and shooting things up. The final act presents a wildly imaginative sequence with characters duking it out across multiple worlds. In between, the film goes through plenty of compelling drama, but a lot of it is ultimately crushed by the comedy; hardly a moment goes by without something funny or ridiculous.

The story continues after the Thor film and The Avengers in a logical manner, continuing the established character arcs. The plot itself is a stand-alone affair, and can be watched pretty easily on its own (you do not need to see the other Marvel films to understand The Dark World, since most connections are passing references, and the narrative does its job of setting things up). The plot goes through a pretty standard structure, but it is far from predictable; there are a few surprising twists and turns, and the film takes the characters to bold new directions. A lot of the characters are fairly one-dimensional (especially Thor himself, the main antagonist, and the scientist characters, who are there mostly for comic relief), but everybody's favorite supervillain, Loki, easily steals the spotlight.

This film pretty standard photography, but I think it is meritable for being solid, having good movements and angles, and generally allowing the action to speak for itself without being stylistically excessive (thus, all the weird Dutch angels from the first film are nowhere to be seen). Editing struck me as being a little screwy in a few scenes, but is mostly spot-on. Acting is good: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and Anthony Hopkins all reprise their roles admirably (Hiddleston has especially grown into his role most comfortably). Natalie Portman continues to play a rather ditzy love interest, but she is given more in this film. Everybody else is decent, although I don't think Christopher Eccleston stood out much at all. Writing is not bad, although I felt that the film's explanation of the Aether and its connection with things like dark matter and the universe in general was pretty weak (pretty much technobabble just for the sake of it). This production has decent-looking sets, props, and costumes. Most special effects are cool, but I thought that some of the backgrounds and starfields looked a little low-rez. Music is alright.

Thor: The Dark World is a grade better than the first Thor film, and it's an easy recommendation for fans of the Marvel films.

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

[jvince]

Thor (2011)
dir. Kenneth Branagh

The Good: If you told me two years ago that Thor would turn out to be a fun popcorn flick and a box office success, I would've laughed at your face and called you crazy. Who in the world was waiting for a big screen adaptation of a lame comic book superhero? That shit seemed pretty hard to film. It seemed destined to fail, spectacularly. Two years later, it has gone on to gross nearly $450 million worldwide, spawning a sequel, and making superstars out of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. And as much as I love Robert Downey Jr. and the first Iron Man movie, for some reason, this is the solo Marvel film I always find myself going back to. The imaginative and magical world-building of Asgard (All those pretty colors and sets!); the pitch-perfect cast (This must be my favorite among all the solo Avenger films); the unexpected but welcome humor (The part when Thor is banished to Earth is a gold mine: "I need a horse!"); and the surprisingly great replay value. They actually managed to make Thor cool. Amazing.

The Bad: Branagh's odd fetish for Dutch angles (although I've warmed up to it after seeing the movie several times). There are also a few cheesy moments here and there, but they mostly add to the charm of the film.

The Bottom Line: Thor is one pleasantly entertaining superhero movie. It may not be a perfect blockbuster film, but it's got the perfect dose of escapism, that's for sure, and sometimes, that's all we need. Here's hoping the sequel recaptures the fun and charm of the original.

[Diesel]

I'm digging the Thor love

His two solo movies are my favorites of the Marvel films...though Cap 2 looks to put up a strong challenge
...then again, Iron Man 3's trailer was fantastic and...well yea, let's not talk about that movie.


Al - Regarding Eccleston, that was one of my biggest complaints of the film, that he was pretty wasted and not given much time
Same for Akinnuoye-Agbaje.

[Abdrewes]

Based on the 1853 autobiography by Samuel Northup, British director Steve McQueen's latest film will have you grimacing throughout. Never have the physical lesions and open wounds of human slavery been depicted so convincingly on screen. All those who look at McQueen as a provocateur who parades brutality for effect must reconsider their stance. 12 Years a Slave proves that he not only has one of the strongest visual senses in modern cinema, but one of the most perceptive. You will be taken on a journey through mankind's darkest hour in the most sensitive and responsible hands.

The first glimpses of this bygone era are those of overseers comfortably settled in their wagon instructing a group of a dozen hulking black men to cut and clean sugarcane. A steadily inching camera cuts through dense foliage and sweeps down to carve a clearer vantage point. We are eavesdropping on something no human eye was ever meant to see. A resilient, but weary-eyed man is singled out. The way he performs these tasks suggest his body is still in the process of adjusting to the rigorous demands of field labor. He is the wrongfully enslaved Samuel Northup.

Played by the incredibly talented Chiwetel Ejiofor, who can emote more with a glance than most performers can with their entire bodies, his embodiment of a man with no other goal but to get back to his family is not a performance you will soon forget. Northup's misfortune began years earlier while on a trip of three weeks, two days away from his wife and two children stationed in Saratoga Springs, New York. The wages wrought from playing the violin with a pair of traveling performers are more than handsome. In celebration, he goes with the two gentlemen to dine and imbibe, ever so grateful for the way the tour panned out. The following morning he finds himself drugged and chained in a dark and dusty corridor. Cinematographer Sean Bobbit illustrates this moment of realization with a directness that is indicative of the film's unvarnished beauty. The camera glides from the bars which separate him from the world to reveal a landscape view of a quaint and viridescent Washington D.C. where the White House sits as the marble focal point. The irony of this plot development quickly evaporates as the tragic breadth of the "peculiar institution" of slavery is on full wretched display.

Samuel is now given the name "Pitt" and transported to New Orleans with several other men to be auctioned off. At the pier, he is sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) along with a hysterical woman dealing with the inconsolable grief of being separated from her two children. The watchful eyes of physically battered slaves observing the goings-on from a safe distance further elaborate blessing it is to have Northup's story while millions lie untold. The twelve years he spent in captivity not only enlighten us of the hardship he endured, but give us a sense of what his brethren underwent.

Ford is a relatively decent master, he goes so far as to heed Samuel's advice while engineering a waterway for the transportation of goods. The destitute woman with whom he was traded with warns him not to get his hopes up. "You are no better than prized livestock," she explains. So after gaining Ford's favor in many facets, including opportunities to play violin, jealousy soon brews between him and one of Ford's quick tempered overseers. After a heated brawl, he is in danger of his life and is handed to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) who owns a cotton plantation.

It is in this stretch of the film where the horrors become painfully explicit. Michael Fassbender delivers yet another insidious performance as a plantation owner who holds contempt over anyone not subjugated to his intransigent whim. There is no greater scene which illustrates both Fassbender's ability to capture interest through kinetic athleticism and the type of grandstanding owner he is than during a drunken chase throughout the plant, around the whipping post, and through a pig sty all over a few of Samuel's whispered words to his most exceptional cotton picker and sexual conquest. "Sin? There is no sin. Man does what he pleases with his property," are words that do not fall upon deaf ears due to the conviction of his performance. Not only will you believe his words, but you will be shaken by them.

Though the film documents the twelve years of being traded from one household to the next, witnessing the ebb and flow of nasty rivalries and abuse in an episodic fashion, there is an ever escalating sense of the physical and psychological damage that resides behind each stern face. The feeling of unending horror clings to the most idyllic setting of New Orleans, where Spanish Moss fortress open Creole plantations. Steve McQueen employs creeping dolly shots similar to the way Claude Lanzmann lingered upon the calm countryside to unearth the torment that once filled Poland during the Holocaust in Shoah. Life is breathed into a past which embraced a way of life that was opposed to our best nature.

12 Years a Slave is never an easy experience. It is just as tough and unflinching as the material calls for. Apart from Jonathan Demme's 1998 masterpiece, Beloved, it is the only film to truly illustrate the magnitude of the institution of slavery. The torment that once resided under each flesh wound is . Whereas the earlier film painted the continuing nightmare of once enslaved people, the anguished memories that they had to carry with them for the rest of their lives, 12 Years a Slave implicates us with the actual experience of living day to day in slavery, that little could be done to appease one's suffering or that of those around you. The scene where the jealous overseer is informed he had no right to kill a man who doesn't belong to him, leaving Samuel to wait for William Ford to cut him down, hauntingly illustrates this concept. Struggling, hands tied behind his back, with the tips of his shoe kissing the soft muddy ground; his fellow slaves can do nothing but watch helplessly and carry about their business. Children frolick in an open field just meters away from the tree on which he hangs. The fear of punishment holds them back from giving Samuel anything more than a sip of water when no one is looking. He shares his pain with no one.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

[Show spoiler]Based on the 1853 autobiography by Samuel Northup, British director Steve McQueen's latest film will have you grimacing throughout. Never have the physical lesions and open wounds of human slavery been depicted so convincingly on screen. All those who look at McQueen as a provocateur who parades brutality for effect must reconsider their stance. 12 Years a Slave proves that he not only has one of the strongest visual senses in modern cinema, but one of the most perceptive. You will be taken on a journey through mankind's darkest hour in the most sensitive and responsible hands.

The first glimpses of this bygone era are those of overseers comfortably settled in their wagon instructing a group of a dozen hulking black men to cut and clean sugarcane. A steadily inching camera cuts through dense foliage and sweeps down to carve a clearer vantage point. We are eavesdropping on something no human eye was ever meant to see. A resilient, but weary-eyed man is singled out. The way he performs these tasks suggest his body is still in the process of adjusting to the rigorous demands of field labor. He is the wrongfully enslaved Samuel Northup.

Played by the incredibly talented Chiwetel Ejiofor, who can emote more with a glance than most performers can with their entire bodies, his embodiment of a man with no other goal but to get back to his family is not a performance you will soon forget. Northup's misfortune began years earlier while on a trip of three weeks, two days away from his wife and two children stationed in Saratoga Springs, New York. The wages wrought from playing the violin with a pair of traveling performers are more than handsome. In celebration, he goes with the two gentlemen to dine and imbibe, ever so grateful for the way the tour panned out. The following morning he finds himself drugged and chained in a dark and dusty corridor. Cinematographer Sean Bobbit illustrates this moment of realization with a directness that is indicative of the film's unvarnished beauty. The camera glides from the bars which separate him from the world to reveal a landscape view of a quaint and viridescent Washington D.C. where the White House sits as the marble focal point. The irony of this plot development quickly evaporates as the tragic breadth of the "peculiar institution" of slavery is on full wretched display.

Samuel is now given the name "Pitt" and transported to New Orleans with several other men to be auctioned off. At the pier, he is sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) along with a hysterical woman dealing with the inconsolable grief of being separated from her two children. The watchful eyes of physically battered slaves observing the goings-on from a safe distance further elaborate blessing it is to have Northup's story while millions lie untold. The twelve years he spent in captivity not only enlighten us of the hardship he endured, but give us a sense of what his brethren underwent.

Ford is a relatively decent master, he goes so far as to heed Samuel's advice while engineering a waterway for the transportation of goods. The destitute woman with whom he was traded with warns him not to get his hopes up. "You are no better than prized livestock," she explains. So after gaining Ford's favor in many facets, including opportunities to play violin, jealousy soon brews between him and one of Ford's quick tempered overseers. After a heated brawl, he is in danger of his life and is handed to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) who owns a cotton plantation.

It is in this stretch of the film where the horrors become painfully explicit. Michael Fassbender delivers yet another insidious performance as a plantation owner who holds contempt over anyone not subjugated to his intransigent whim. There is no greater scene which illustrates both Fassbender's ability to capture interest through kinetic athleticism and the type of grandstanding owner he is than during a drunken chase throughout the plant, around the whipping post, and through a pig sty all over a few of Samuel's whispered words to his most exceptional cotton picker and sexual conquest. "Sin? There is no sin. Man does what he pleases with his property," are words that do not fall upon deaf ears due to the conviction of his performance. Not only will you believe his words, but you will be shaken by them.

Though the film documents the twelve years of being traded from one household to the next, witnessing the ebb and flow of nasty rivalries and abuse in an episodic fashion, there is an ever escalating sense of the physical and psychological damage that resides behind each stern face. The feeling of unending horror clings to the most idyllic setting of New Orleans, where Spanish Moss fortress open Creole plantations. Steve McQueen employs creeping dolly shots similar to the way Claude Lanzmann lingered upon the calm countryside to unearth the torment that once filled Poland during the Holocaust in Shoah. Life is breathed into a past which embraced a way of life that was opposed to our best nature.

12 Years a Slave is never an easy experience. It is just as tough and unflinching as the material calls for. Apart from Jonathan Demme's 1998 masterpiece, Beloved, it is the only film to truly illustrate the magnitude of the institution of slavery. The torment that once resided under each flesh wound is . Whereas the earlier film painted the continuing nightmare of once enslaved people, the anguished memories that they had to carry with them for the rest of their lives, 12 Years a Slave implicates us with the actual experience of living day to day in slavery, that little could be done to appease one's suffering or that of those around you. The scene where the jealous overseer is informed he had no right to kill a man who doesn't belong to him, leaving Samuel to wait for William Ford to cut him down, hauntingly illustrates this concept. Struggling, hands tied behind his back, with the tips of his shoe kissing the soft muddy ground; his fellow slaves can do nothing but watch helplessly and carry about their business. Children frolick in an open field just meters away from the tree on which he hangs. The fear of punishment holds them back from giving Samuel anything more than a sip of water when no one is looking. He shares his pain with no one.

Great review as always, Abdrewes!