The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

That is one hell of a list Al. Thanks for posting it. I didn't know you were that into dramas. Very cool.

Yep, dramas can entertain me if they're done right.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Based on the types of films you enjoyed, here are two I think you would really get something from. You may even have seen them, I dunno.

Both are very touching stories about human's ability to learn and change.

Departures: the film follows a young man who returns to his hometown after a failed career as a cellist and stumbles across work as a nōkanshi—a traditional Japanese ritual mortician. He is subjected to prejudice from those around him, including from his wife, because of strong social taboos against people who deal with death. Eventually he earns respect and learns the importance of interpersonal connections through the beauty and dignity of his work.

The Snow Walker: the film is about a Canadian bush pilot whose life is changed through an encounter with a young Inuit woman and their challenge to survive the harsh conditions of the Northwest Territories following an aircraft crash

Sounds good, I'll have to give these a rent.

Originally Posted by Diesel

The above review makes combined with Battle of Five Armies and currently playing Lego Lord of the Rings makes me really, really want to watch those movies. I'm due for a rewatch soon.

I know the feeling.

Next year might be nothing but marathons: 6 Fast and Furious movies to gear up for #7, 6 Star Wars movies before seeing TFA, 3 Jurassic Parks, 3 Mad Maxes, 3 Hunger Games, 4 Terminators, 4 Mission: Impossibles, 20+ James Bonds, a bunch of Marvel films...

[Astro Zombie]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Just as good as its predecessor, The Two Towers succeeds at being a great sequel, especially since it's basically the middle act of a 3-part Lord of the Rings film. Because of this, there really isn't a beginning or an end; we pick up right where the last one left off, and end as Frodo and Sam continue their journey to Mordor. Luckily, the film doesn't suffer from being the middle entry in the series, and remains just as engrossing throughout.

Again, I must mention the fact that it goes by so quickly, a testament to the brilliant pacing. The Fellowship that was formed in the first film has been split, with Frodo and Sam going their own way, while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are on the trail of Merry and Pippin, who have been captured. With so many characters and plotlines to follow, the film could have collapsed under the weight, but it never does, instead feeling completely effortless. Aragorn and his group are given a bit more screen-time than everyone else, but that's okay with me as they remain some of my favorite characters.

Gollum is also introduced in full this time, and is one of the best characters in the series. And I can't forget about Helm's Deep, truly one of the most epic sequences you'll ever see. While I can't say for sure I prefer this one to Fellowship, it's still a wonderful film, and in some ways better (the added humor is welcome).

5/5

Review

[Astro Zombie]

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

After sitting through all three Lord of the Rings films, it really does feel like I've been on an incredible journey. The Return of the King is the conclusion to the saga, and what an epic conclusion it is. From what I read, Jackson had to cut quite a bit of stuff to keep the film at an already extravagant 200-minute runtime (most of which was restored in the Extended Cut), but the movie manages to tie everything up rather nicely, even if it does take 37 endings to get there.

Grandiose doesn't even begin to explain the film (and the series as a whole, really), it is suitably awe-inspiring in every aspect, perfectly exemplified by the Battle of Pelennor Fields. It's a thing of beauty, taking up a large chunk of the film, and even surpassing Helm's Deep in scope. And all jokes aside, the ending(s) give us a chance to say goodbye to every character, and I think we can all agree it's one of the more emotionally powerful sequences in cinema.

I loved these films much more this time than I ever thought I would, and I'm so glad I revisited them. Next up: The Hobbit.

5/5

Review

[Al_The_Strange]

Exodus: Gods and Kings

For thousands of years, the Book of Exodus has stood as a awe-inspiring account showing how God's power liberated the Jews from slavery, and set them on the path to form their own nation. It's always been an inspiring tale of faith, power, and liberation. To say nothing of the characters involved; Moses, much like Maximus in Gladiator, is a man who serves his country, is banished, but comes back with a vengeance. Ramses, much like Commodus in Gladiator, is a man whose ego is so bloated, he is driven to betray his most loyal followers. Put the two together, and you have a dynamic, intense drama that could put all of Ben Hur to shame.

Exodus: Gods and Kings promises an epic, visually-lush retelling of these classic characters and events. It bears something in common with Ridley Scott's earlier work with Gladiator, especially in regards to the characters. However, as it is with Kingdom of Heaven's theatrical cut and Robin Hood, the experience of Exodus is not always perfect.

The film definitely delivers on the visual front: each scene is laden with beautiful landscapes, highly-detailed sets and props, and lavish visual effects. There is one major battle scene in the beginning, which is fairly satisfying. After a long stretch of slower-paced drama, the ten plagues are shown as a montage of widespread chaos. It's portrayed less as a direct action of God, and more as a chain reaction of nature, with God's oversight; some audiences won't like this depiction, but I personally loved it. The passover scene is appropriately somber (although, with the film showing a giant shadow passing over the city, I kinda expected

[Show spoiler]a UFO from Prometheus to appear out of the clouds or something. How trippy would that have been?

). When the exodus finally happens, the famous Red Sea scene offers a fantastic vision of giant walls of water crashing over the Egyptian army, and it is quite the impressive sight.

Unfortunately, in-between all these exciting scenes, the film slows down drastically to a crawl, wadding through character-driven drama. It makes the pacing really herky-jerky, and if you don't care for the lead characters, then the film will be a total bore.

As it is, I found the characters to be decent enough. I could appreciate the conflict between Moses and Ramses, which has a lot of push and pull that keeps the plot moving through its projected course. What might make the story iffy, however, is the details and how they compare to the source material. Moses is presented as a man who "wrestles with God," rather than simply doing God's bidding or wielding God's power. God appears as a character, and it's not even clear if He's meant to be taken literally or as a figment of Moses' imagination (events tend to contradict both views, so the only good way to interpret this is to assume that God is real, but only Moses can see him after suffering a massive head trauma. Weird, isn't it?). God's goal throughout is to upstage everybody else, to humble them. It's in line with the Old Testament view of things, but on-screen, it feels off, because God's relationship with Moses is purposefully strained. Bible literalists will find this movie distasteful, thanks to the unconventional way the characters and events are handled.

Fortunately, the film looks splendid, with fantastic photography and editing. Acting is great: I thoroughly appreciated Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton as the two leads, I loved Maria Valverde, and everybody else is not bad. Writing is pretty bad; most dialogue is blunt, unrefined, and it feels oddly modernized. This production uses spectacular sets, props, costumes, and special effects. The music score is really beautiful too.

Despite the quality of the production, the quality performances, and the visual grandeur, the film has messy pacing and messy content that won't sit well with most viewers. I personally feel that the film has merit, and deviations from the Bible don't bother me that much, but it does feel a little off, and I'd love to see if a director's cut will rectify these problems the way it did with Kingdom of Heaven. As it is, anybody looking for a straight biblical adaptation should stick with Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments. Rent this only if you're a fan of historical epics, and you're not too hung up over biblical accuracy.

3.5/5 (Experience: Average | Content: Marginal | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Rent it if you're looking for a good-looking historical epic and don't care about biblical accuracy.

[Foggy]

Not really a film, but a feature length special, hopefully I'll final manage to get some people to watch the darn show now that it's streaming on Netflix.

Black Mirror: White Christmas

To my surprise, Charlie Brooker's anthology series received a Christmas special. Even more surprising, the special was about cherishing time with your loved ones.

However, this is achieved through establishing personal disconnect through the social age, after all this is still the same dark, disturbing and depressing show and it's not eased up through the festive season.

Also, it's probably best, if you're planning on checking out, go in as blind as possible. Since most the twists and surprises are in what the actual stories are about, I won't spoil anything other than the premises and the ideas I formed from them, but the way the special comes together might be easier to predict knowing some of the events stated.

The structure of the show is shaken up here, offering three small festive-tinged stories all interconnected, as we see two men, played by Rafe Spall and John "how-the-****-did-they-get-him-to-be-in-it?" Hamm from Mad Men, in a Arctic wasteland base working on Christmas Day. Both having not spoken to each other in years, decide to share stories of how they got to working in such a remote station, thus branching off into three separate stories.

The first story features Hamm talking to an awkward loser trying to get him laid at a Christmas party. The tech touch is that Hamm is looking through the eyes of the loser and streaming it online to friends looking to jerk off to the activity. It's probably the most on the nose of the three, obviously covering the well vouched topic of Voyerism, and it's probably the one that features the least interesting questions, but it's probably the funniest of the three and one that plays heavily into the overall story.

The second, also featuring Hamm, is probably the least stand alone of the three, since it features no conclusion. However the story features a way to download your own subconscious to operate your technology and things just the way you want it, in a Siri kind of way. The big kicker is that the subconscious is almost a trapped slave to yourself. The idea is that we are so self-deprecating and divorce from ourselves and emotions that we would enslave ourselves to ensure our toast was made correctly in the morning. It's probably the worst chilling and scariest idea out of the three, since the moral implications are truly dreadful, and you honestly believe this would be a highly marketable piece of kit people would buy. It's also the one with the most cinematic influences.

The final story is Spall's personal story, where his wife physically blocks him in real life. Spall is pretty much drawn to obsession as tries desperately to learn about his wife as he is physically isolated from talking to her, as he is unable to redeem or earn forgiveness, as information is kept from him because his wife simply can't bring herself to communicate to him. It's a pretty haunting idea, the idea of simply avoiding conflict, or simply avoiding communication in general, and it's further explored in the show in ways that would be giving away things. But as the special draws to a close and all the elements come together, in what I can honestly describe as quite masterful, you really get a sense of profound respect for the Holiday season.

It kinda of a really delicious irony, that a series so far away from Season greetings can have such a life affirming message while being so cold, bitter and cynical as it is without any kind of compromise. I think the specials greatest achievement is the fact that it makes so much sense in and upon itself despite feeling like such a paradoxical event...but don't get me wrong, it's still depressing as ****.

[Al_The_Strange]

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

For the past few years, I adamently refused to believe that these movies would suck, that the accusations of them being a bloated cash cow is not warranted and The Hobbit saga can be justifiably powerful as a trilogy on the same level as Lord of the Rings. Sadly, I must now recind my former line of thinking: now, I officially do believe that The Hobbit is indeed unecessarily bloated and unjustly spread out. It should have always been two movies, not three (I may have to re-adjust all my other Hobbit reviews accordingly ).

The journey of Bilbo Baggins and his company of 13 dwarves was always destined to end one way: all out war. In their struggles, these 14 characters managed to cross paths with goblins, orcs, eagles, wood elves, and men. Inevitably, once Smaug is dealt with, they would all converge on Erebor to split up the dragon's treasure, and their bickering would escalate into the Battle of the Five Armies.

With most of the journey completed up to this point, the film's sole purpose is the climax: there is no rising action or build-up, the film jumps right into showing Smaug decimating Laketown, the White Council confronting the Necromancer, and five different armies breaking out in all-out combat. In spite of this, the film is easily the most action-packed and evenly-paced movie of the entire saga. There is tons of action and visual splendor, from the decimation of an entire town to the showdown between iconic characters in an ancient snow-covered ruin. The film is always shifting gears from one huge setpiece to another, as the battle constantly changes and new foes erupt to take the film in exciting new directions. The film is the shortest of all Middle Earth films, but its sheer amount of action makes it feel longer, more epic, and more breakneck than the others.

Where the film falls short, unfortunately, is the storytelling. Truth is, most of the burden of the storytelling was left to the last two films, so there's little left but to have all the characters fight. The film is at its best as it shows Thorin's madness from "dragon sickness," Bilbo's intervention in the brewing conflict, Bard's efforts to lead others and protect his family, and the occasional burst of drama involving Turiel and Legolas (although both could have been cut from this whole series without much impact). Once the battle's over, however, the film fails to tie up loose ends. Instead, it either leaves them hanging, or severs them in oddly unsatisfying ways. While LOTR: ROTK took the time to offer a denounment that gave a satisfying conclusion to each character, H: BOTFA pretty much ends with Bilbo saying bye to everyone and returning home. We'll never find out what happens to Bard, or Beorn (who was last seen being dropped in to the middle of the fray), or Radagast (last seen surfing an eagle), Dain (last seen head-butting orcs at random), Turiel (I guess she's

[Show spoiler]considered banished?

), those wood elves (

[Show spoiler]did they ever get their pretty star diamonds?

), or all those Laketown refugees (

[Show spoiler]did they ever get compensation?

). For all we know,

[Show spoiler]Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel could still be d*cking around Dol Guldor until LOTR.

Even though having "many endings" like LOTR: ROTK would have strained some viewers' patience, I would have personally appreciated at least a little more dialogue or scenes to round off all these characters. Overall, however, this only feels like half a movie. Really, it's the half of a movie that should have been tacked onto the end of The Desolation of Smaug. On its own, it's a rather flat and shallow storyline. In the larger context of the whole Hobbit saga, it generally works and it is a thrilling endgame, but a few more words concerning the characters and events would have made this a stronger ending, and maybe even a more powerful film.

Fortunately, the film looks as good as the rest, with good, sweeping photography and concise editing. Acting is still strong from the whole cast, with Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage being the biggest standouts among the veterans of the series. Writing is still great. This production has great-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. The music score is pretty decent too.

The film is definitely jam-packed with all the great fantasy-action we've always loved to see in the Middle Earth saga, but once studios made the decision to stretch The Hobbit into three films, there was little choice but to cleave off the climax and turn it into this odd standalone feature. On its own, it's rather dry, but with the other movies, it's a must-see. My only wish is that there could have been a fonder farewell to all the players involved with the whole affair.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Average | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Go see it anyway.
--------------------
All this being said, I am now curious to see how the Extended Edition will fare. If it has more scenes to round off the characters, I may love it a lot more than I do now. As it is, I'm waiting for a full-blown box set for all Extended Hobbit movies.

[Astro Zombie]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

There's always gonna be comparisons between this new series and The Lord of the Rings, but I think The Hobbit trilogy is a worthy successor to that epic series. There really is a lot to like here, from the various dwarves that add some welcome humor, Martin Freeman's wonderful performance as Bilbo, and the way it nicely ties back to The Lord of the Rings. Several characters from that series return briefly, such as Elrond and Saruman, and of course, Gandalf. The story isn't as epic as LOTR, no matter how hard Jackson tries to make it seem that way, but it's a fairly lighthearted adventure with at least one stand-out sequence (Riddles in the Dark is brilliant).

Anyone know where I can get a Rhosgobel Rabbit?

4/5

Review

[Astro Zombie]

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

I liked it much more the second time. Jackson gets even more CGI-crazy this time around, but it still manages to entertain. Are there problems? Sure. An unnecessary love triangle is introduced involving Tauriel, Legolas and Kili, which could have been completely cut out with no effect to the rest of the film. It's a shame really, since Tauriel is pretty awesome when she's fighting, but is instead saddled with this. Bilbo also has much less screen-time, even though Freeman is clearly the best thing about the series.

If there's any reason to watch the film, it's because of two things. First, the barrel sequence, which is easily one of the most exciting and well-made sequences in the series. Second, of course, is Smaug himself. He's an absolute marvel, looking frighteningly realistic, and his scene with Bilbo when he first wakes up is fascinating to watch. Another thing that played much better with me was the cliffhanger, which, while still abrupt, definitely left me anticipating the final installment. I just hope The Battle of the Five Armies delivers.

4/5

Review

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

[Show spoiler]For the past few years, I adamently refused to believe that these movies would suck, that the accusations of them being a bloated cash cow is not warranted and The Hobbit saga can be justifiably powerful as a trilogy on the same level as Lord of the Rings. Sadly, I must now recind my former line of thinking: now, I officially do believe that The Hobbit is indeed unecessarily bloated and unjustly spread out. It should have always been two movies, not three (I may have to re-adjust all my other Hobbit reviews accordingly ).

The journey of Bilbo Baggins and his company of 13 dwarves was always destined to end one way: all out war. In their struggles, these 14 characters managed to cross paths with goblins, orcs, eagles, wood elves, and men. Inevitably, once Smaug is dealt with, they would all converge on Erebor to split up the dragon's treasure, and their bickering would escalate into the Battle of the Five Armies.

With most of the journey completed up to this point, the film's sole purpose is the climax: there is no rising action or build-up, the film jumps right into showing Smaug decimating Laketown, the White Council confronting the Necromancer, and five different armies breaking out in all-out combat. In spite of this, the film is easily the most action-packed and evenly-paced movie of the entire saga. There is tons of action and visual splendor, from the decimation of an entire town to the showdown between iconic characters in an ancient snow-covered ruin. The film is always shifting gears from one huge setpiece to another, as the battle constantly changes and new foes erupt to take the film in exciting new directions. The film is the shortest of all Middle Earth films, but its sheer amount of action makes it feel longer, more epic, and more breakneck than the others.

Where the film falls short, unfortunately, is the storytelling. Truth is, most of the burden of the storytelling was left to the last two films, so there's little left but to have all the characters fight. The film is at its best as it shows Thorin's madness from "dragon sickness," Bilbo's intervention in the brewing conflict, Bard's efforts to lead others and protect his family, and the occasional burst of drama involving Turiel and Legolas (although both could have been cut from this whole series without much impact). Once the battle's over, however, the film fails to tie up loose ends. Instead, it either leaves them hanging, or severs them in oddly unsatisfying ways. While LOTR: ROTK took the time to offer a denounment that gave a satisfying conclusion to each character, H: BOTFA pretty much ends with Bilbo saying bye to everyone and returning home. We'll never find out what happens to Bard, or Beorn (who was last seen being dropped in to the middle of the fray), or Radagast (last seen surfing an eagle), Dain (last seen head-butting orcs at random), Turiel (I guess she's

[Show spoiler]considered banished?

), those wood elves (

[Show spoiler]did they ever get their pretty star diamonds?

), or all those Laketown refugees (

[Show spoiler]did they ever get compensation?

). For all we know,

[Show spoiler]Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel could still be d*cking around Dol Guldor until LOTR.

Even though having "many endings" like LOTR: ROTK would have strained some viewers' patience, I would have personally appreciated at least a little more dialogue or scenes to round off all these characters. Overall, however, this only feels like half a movie. Really, it's the half of a movie that should have been tacked onto the end of The Desolation of Smaug. On its own, it's a rather flat and shallow storyline. In the larger context of the whole Hobbit saga, it generally works and it is a thrilling endgame, but a few more words concerning the characters and events would have made this a stronger ending, and maybe even a more powerful film.

Fortunately, the film looks as good as the rest, with good, sweeping photography and concise editing. Acting is still strong from the whole cast, with Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage being the biggest standouts among the veterans of the series. Writing is still great. This production has great-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. The music score is pretty decent too.

The film is definitely jam-packed with all the great fantasy-action we've always loved to see in the Middle Earth saga, but once studios made the decision to stretch The Hobbit into three films, there was little choice but to cleave off the climax and turn it into this odd standalone feature. On its own, it's rather dry, but with the other movies, it's a must-see. My only wish is that there could have been a fonder farewell to all the players involved with the whole affair.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Average | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Go see it anyway.
--------------------
All this being said, I am now curious to see how the Extended Edition will fare. If it has more scenes to round off the characters, I may love it a lot more than I do now. As it is, I'm waiting for a full-blown box set for all Extended Hobbit movies.

I don't think I can really disagree with anything you wrote except the score itself (I am gonna go 4/5), great capturing of the movie Al
Perhaps there will be a fan edit of a two movie version


One thing I will add is the same issue that has been present with the other two films is the over reliance on CGI when it really wasn't necessary. A lot of the effects look fantastic, but I just hate the shots that it is PAINFULLY obvious that it is a CG effect/character instead of a practical effect/suit. I don't mind CG in the slightest or prefer practical inherently....I prefer whichever looks the best and is the most believable.



It is my #2 for the Hobbit films and #5 overall for the Middle Earth Saga but I still highly enjoyed it even with my issues. Like you, I hope the EE adds some material to the ending to tie up some things. I believe Jackson said the amount of footage will be approximately 30 minutes again.

For the final movie I will finally wait for the EE before purchasing and I'll also probably pick up the Desolation of Smaug's EE at some point over the next year when I get the urge to watch it again.

[Astro Zombie]

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually thought the movie was too short. Obviously, it's the shortest of the Middle-Earth films, but still runs at a healthy 144 minutes. And yet I feel it could have and should have gone on a little longer. The pacing was great; it flew by much quicker than the first two. But it did feel like a lot of stuff was cut out or shortened. Hopefully, the inevitable Extended Cut fleshes out the film a little more.

As it is, I enjoyed the hell out of this. It's literally all climax, after we're finished with Smaug and Laketown all we're left with is the titular battle. It's a truly epic battle, although I gotta say the CGI didn't seem very impressive. Maybe it was just the HFR but there were several instances when it got too fake-looking. It makes you miss the more practical effects of LOTR. There's also the problem of Bilbo's screen-time, which is reduced even more this time. Remind me again who the trilogy is named after?

If there's one standout scene (not counting the actual battle), it's the scene in Dol Guldur with the White Council. How awesome was that, and more importantly, how ****ing awesome is Lady Galadriel. Jackson also ties up the film rather well, and the ending segues nicely into Fellowship of the Ring. I think this is probably my favorite film in the trilogy, and even though The Hobbit doesn't quite stack up against The Lord of the Rings, I can't imagine ever watching one without the other. And really, who doesn't like spending more time in Middle-Earth?

A big thumbs-up also to Billy Boyd's song, "The Last Goodbye," which plays over the end credits. It's completely fitting.

4/5

Review

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I don't think I can really disagree with anything you wrote except the score itself (I am gonna go 4/5), great capturing of the movie Al

Thank you sir.

Originally Posted by Diesel

One thing I will add is the same issue that has been present with the other two films is the over reliance on CGI when it really wasn't necessary. A lot of the effects look fantastic, but I just hate the shots that it is PAINFULLY obvious that it is a CG effect/character instead of a practical effect/suit. I don't mind CG in the slightest or prefer practical inherently....I prefer whichever looks the best and is the most believable.

At this point, I think I've become numb to all CGI, good or bad.

Originally Posted by Diesel

It is my #2 for the Hobbit films and #5 overall for the Middle Earth Saga but I still highly enjoyed it even with my issues. Like you, I hope the EE adds some material to the ending to tie up some things. I believe Jackson said the amount of footage will be approximately 30 minutes again.

I think my rankings will wind up looking like this:

1. LOTR: ROTK
2. LOTR: TTT
3. LOTR: FOTR
4. H: DOS
5. H: BOTFA
6. H: AUJ

I edged BOTFA just slightly over AUJ for its sheer entertainment value, but AUJ is one of the more complete films. Collectively, all of the Hobbit movies are like a 4.5/5, LOTR is 5/5.

Originally Posted by Diesel

For the final movie I will finally wait for the EE before purchasing and I'll also probably pick up the Desolation of Smaug's EE at some point over the next year when I get the urge to watch it again.

I'll probably get the theatrical 3D edition on top of the EEs, since I have the theatrical cuts for the other Hobbit movies up to now.

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Review

I certainly agree that this one could have benefited from a longer run time.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thank you sir.

At this point, I think I've become numb to all CGI, good or bad.



I think my rankings will wind up looking like this:

1. LOTR: ROTK
2. LOTR: TTT
3. LOTR: FOTR
4. H: DOS
5. H: BOTFA
6. H: AUJ

I edged BOTFA just slightly over AUJ for its sheer entertainment value, but AUJ is one of the more complete films. Collectively, all of the Hobbit movies are like a 4.5/5, LOTR is 5/5.

My order is the same
ROTK, TTT both get 5/5 (ROTK TE > ROTK EE; TTT EE > TTT TE); FOTR, DOS both get 4.25/5 (4.5/5 for the EEs) and BOTFA, AUJ get 4/5.

So many acronyms

I agree that AUJ is a more capable film to stand on its own (which is also the case for FOTR), but I think they benefit greatly in that by being the beginning of the story.

I'll probably get the theatrical 3D edition on top of the EEs, since I have the theatrical cuts for the other Hobbit movies up to now.

AUJ is the only EE I have yet to see, but I personally thought that one was long enough as it and even too long in more parts compared to the other two. However I could just be predisposed to this rationale because I don't like the Goblin King section

I certainly agree that this one could have benefited from a longer run time.

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)



Review

"Peter Jackson Middle Earth movie isn't long enough"

Who would have thought that would get said

[Astro Zombie]

Foxcatcher (2014)

I didn't get quite what I was expecting; the trailers kinda promised more of a psychological thriller when it's really more of a character drama. Not a slight against the movie mind you, but something to keep in mind. The film tells the true-story events pretty straightforwardly, but the most important thing here are the performances. Everyone does a wonderful job, particularly Tatum, who continues to challenge himself with every role and, in my eyes, is the most Oscar-worthy of the three. Carell is great as well, and proves that he's got more than just comedic chops. Ruffalo doesn't get much screen-time in the first half, but once he's recruited for Team Foxcatcher he really gets a chance to shine.

The film has a slow-as-molasses pacing, and can honestly feel a little meandering at times, but this is a performance-driven film and they keep the whole film anchored. If you're aware of the events behind the film, you know how it ends, and the last 10-15 minutes may be some of the most intense moments of the year. If you can handle the awkward silences and deliberate pacing, it's well worth watching.

4/5

Review

[Pondosinatra]

Nymphomaniac (Directors Cut)



Director: Lars Von Trier

Main Stars: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stellan Skarsgard, Stacy Martin, Christian Slater

Rating:

3.5 out of 5 Part 1

2 out of 5 Part 2

On his way home Seligman (Skarsgard) finds a beat up woman (Gainsbourg) lying on the ground. He helps her up and takes her to his place. She tells him her name is Joe, that she is evil and a Nymphomaniac. He doubts that she is truly evil and so she decides to tell him her story to see if he still thinks that after hearing it. Lars Von Trier is nothing if not purposefully confrontational (just watch his interview that got him banned from the Cannes Film Festival). I’ve only seen two of his other films, although I still plan on seeing the well regarded Dancer In the Dark soon. Antichrist was a flawed, head trip of a film, but with out a doubt visually beautiful. In Melancholia he combined that visual flair with a story that resonated with me - he had created the perfect film. But it seems with his latest that he has become a victim to his own sense of genius. Split into two separate movies with the directors cut running over 5 hours of mostly dialog, exhausting is the world that comes to mind. The first one ends abruptly when Joe discovers she can no longer feel anything sexually. While that’s the so called ‘cliffhanger’ setup for Part 2, I guess most people will have tuned out by then. Part 1 actually isn’t bad. It explores her childhood and growing up with her Nymphomania and her relationship with her family, mostly her father played by Christian Slater. Stacy Martin who plays the younger Joe is absolutely mesmerizing to watch. Part 2 is mostly about Joe increasingly desperate to regain sexual satisfaction. After trying everything from sleeping with up to 10 men a night, and engaging in group sex she finally achieves orgasm while having the flesh ripped from her rear end while receiving 40 lashes from a sadomasochist she had turned to for help. As for the sex, yes, it received the most attention in the media, and yes you see everything and anything at least in the Director’s cut. However you soon become numb to it all and watch everything with a cool sense of detachment. My guess is that was the directors intended effect, mirroring what the main character was going through. But despite it’s artistic overindulgence what truly ruined it for me was the ending. You have the character of Seligman, essentially the opposite of Joe as he is well versed in literature and still a virgin. He listens throughout the night to her story and while at times revolted is mostly sympathetic drawing parallels from her experiences to everything from religion, to classical music, to mathematical equations. Then just before the credits he does something completely at odds to his character. It as if the director is giving his audience that just finished enduring this marathon the finger. Right back at ya. Not recommended.

[Astro Zombie]

Into the Woods (2014)

I'm a big fan of musicals, and Rob Marshall's Chicago is one of my favorite films, so I was anticipating Into the Woods quite a bit since I saw the first trailer. I loved it a whole lot to be honest, I thought it was wonderful, but I am in agreement with several others that the third act takes a noticeable dive. Once the giants are introduced the film never regains the momentum of the first two acts.

The cast certainly isn't the problem, and pretty much everyone is great in their roles (plus they can actually sing). Emily Blunt in particular was so great, every time her character was on-screen the film went up a notch...but what the film does to her in the third act kinda bugged me, though it did lead to the great "Any Moment/Moments in the Woods" number. Speaking of the musical numbers, they're very well-done, with some memorable songs ("Agony" and "On the Steps of the Palace" are two other highlights).

I wish I could have rated it slightly higher but there were some nagging issues I had that kinda stopped me. But I had a great time watching it and I feel that on re-watches I might like it even more.

4/5

Review

[Astro Zombie]

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

There was a kid one seat away from me who would NOT F**KING STAY STILL. I swear this motherf**ker had ADHD or something. At one point he started slamming his armrests while violently shaking in his seat. I don't think he was sitting with his parents because he got up like 3 times and went to another row to talk to someone. Near the end of the movie, he grabbed his empty soda cup and RIPPED IT APART, spilling ice everywhere. I wish I was making this up. It completely ruined the whole f**king experience.

The movie itself...well I enjoyed it for the most part. I found the first act to be kind of slow but as it goes along it does start to pick up. By the time we reach the Ten Plagues it actually gets quite good. The biggest weak spot for me was the cast. Bale was great as always, and Edgerton was also good, but everyone else was serviceable at best. I just cannot see John Turturro as a Pharaoh, Ben Kingsley could have been good if he had more screen-time, and what the f**k was up with Sigourney Weaver? I'm pretty sure she had like 4 minutes of screen-time and 1 line. 1 F**KING LINE. If there is in fact a Director's Cut, I hope it restores whatever Ridley cut out of her performance.

The set design is fantastic, and it's nice to see actual extras and physical props being used instead of just endless CGI, even though it gets plenty digital-y in the end. I do plan to revisit the film, hopefully with less distractions (seriously, F**K that kid).

Also, I kinda wish Creeping Death had played over the end credits.

3.5/5

Review

[Astro Zombie]

Really loved this one.

This is probably the most Oscar bait-y film I've seen all year. It has all the traits the Academy loves, and I would not be surprised if it gathers several nominations at the Oscars. And even with that, I found it to be one of the most engrossing films of the year. The story of Alan Turing was one that I was not familiar with, and even if the film glosses over some stuff and exaggerates others, the events themselves remain pretty incredible.

What really elevates the film from good to great is Benedict Cumberbatch. He throws himself completely into his role as Turing, resulting in one of the finest performances of the year. It's completely his show, even though he's surrounded by great talent like Matthew Goode and Keira Knightley, who put in fine performances as well. The film plays it mostly safe, though I loved that they focused a bit on Turing's homosexuality, and never becomes too dark or grim. In fact, it's surprisingly lighthearted, with some good comedy beats (the apple scene is hilarious). So basically, it's your typical crowd-pleasing Oscar film, and apparently I eat that kind of stuff up.

4.5/5

Review

[Astro Zombie]

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

I needed something to start 2015 off right, something new and fresh to me. In scanning my collection, I came across Once Upon a Time in the West. I bought this a few months ago and had yet to see it, so I decided now was as good a time as any to watch it. The Dollars trilogy are some of my favorite films, and I've heard numerous times about this being Leone's "masterpiece," so needless to say expectations were fairly high. While The Good, the Bad and the Ugly remains his masterpiece in my eyes, West is absolutely no slouch.

The story isn't quite as simple as GBU, but it's hardly complicated: there's a valuable piece of land and someone wants it. But once again, it's not about the story itself but how Leone tells it. His trademark style is in full force here. We all know he was a master with the camera, with extreme close-ups used to wonderful effect. Leone also had a knack for not showing us everything at once (how about when Jill is about to leave her house, opens the door, and we see her shocked reaction for a few seconds before Leone swings the camera around the door to reveal Cheyenne and his gang), and it truly helps to amp up the suspense. It's a visual film, with gorgeous cinematography and long takes that let us soak in the West in all its glory.

Word has it Leone wanted Clint Eastwood to play Harmonica, but he turned it down. I can definitely see Eastwood delivering some of his great lines ("You brought two too many"), Charles Bronson brings the same sort of steely coolness to the role. His character actually gets some backstory here, which is brought up at the end in an absolutely fantastic final duel between him and Frank. Speaking of Frank, Henry Fonda is a cold-hearted motherf**ker, perfectly exemplified in his first scene where he murders an entire family, children and all. These murders end up being pinned on Cheyenne, played by Jason Robards, who shares some great scenes with the former two. And of course, in the middle of all this is Claudia Cardinale and her character Jill, who...holy shit, she's really f**king gorgeous.

It may not be quite as iconic as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but it's arguably just as good. I haven't even mentioned Ennio Morricone's classic score, which remains just as memorable as his Dollars scores. Not just a great western, but a great film in general.

5/5

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Exodus: Gods and Kings

[Show spoiler]For thousands of years, the Book of Exodus has stood as a awe-inspiring account showing how God's power liberated the Jews from slavery, and set them on the path to form their own nation. It's always been an inspiring tale of faith, power, and liberation. To say nothing of the characters involved; Moses, much like Maximus in Gladiator, is a man who serves his country, is banished, but comes back with a vengeance. Ramses, much like Commodus in Gladiator, is a man whose ego is so bloated, he is driven to betray his most loyal followers. Put the two together, and you have a dynamic, intense drama that could put all of Ben Hur to shame.

Exodus: Gods and Kings promises an epic, visually-lush retelling of these classic characters and events. It bears something in common with Ridley Scott's earlier work with Gladiator, especially in regards to the characters. However, as it is with Kingdom of Heaven's theatrical cut and Robin Hood, the experience of Exodus is not always perfect.

The film definitely delivers on the visual front: each scene is laden with beautiful landscapes, highly-detailed sets and props, and lavish visual effects. There is one major battle scene in the beginning, which is fairly satisfying. After a long stretch of slower-paced drama, the ten plagues are shown as a montage of widespread chaos. It's portrayed less as a direct action of God, and more as a chain reaction of nature, with God's oversight; some audiences won't like this depiction, but I personally loved it. The passover scene is appropriately somber (although, with the film showing a giant shadow passing over the city, I kinda expected

[Show spoiler]a UFO from Prometheus to appear out of the clouds or something. How trippy would that have been?

). When the exodus finally happens, the famous Red Sea scene offers a fantastic vision of giant walls of water crashing over the Egyptian army, and it is quite the impressive sight.

Unfortunately, in-between all these exciting scenes, the film slows down drastically to a crawl, wadding through character-driven drama. It makes the pacing really herky-jerky, and if you don't care for the lead characters, then the film will be a total bore.

As it is, I found the characters to be decent enough. I could appreciate the conflict between Moses and Ramses, which has a lot of push and pull that keeps the plot moving through its projected course. What might make the story iffy, however, is the details and how they compare to the source material. Moses is presented as a man who "wrestles with God," rather than simply doing God's bidding or wielding God's power. God appears as a character, and it's not even clear if He's meant to be taken literally or as a figment of Moses' imagination (events tend to contradict both views, so the only good way to interpret this is to assume that God is real, but only Moses can see him after suffering a massive head trauma. Weird, isn't it?). God's goal throughout is to upstage everybody else, to humble them. It's in line with the Old Testament view of things, but on-screen, it feels off, because God's relationship with Moses is purposefully strained. Bible literalists will find this movie distasteful, thanks to the unconventional way the characters and events are handled.

Fortunately, the film looks splendid, with fantastic photography and editing. Acting is great: I thoroughly appreciated Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton as the two leads, I loved Maria Valverde, and everybody else is not bad. Writing is pretty bad; most dialogue is blunt, unrefined, and it feels oddly modernized. This production uses spectacular sets, props, costumes, and special effects. The music score is really beautiful too.

Despite the quality of the production, the quality performances, and the visual grandeur, the film has messy pacing and messy content that won't sit well with most viewers. I personally feel that the film has merit, and deviations from the Bible don't bother me that much, but it does feel a little off, and I'd love to see if a director's cut will rectify these problems the way it did with Kingdom of Heaven. As it is, anybody looking for a straight biblical adaptation should stick with Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments. Rent this only if you're a fan of historical epics, and you're not too hung up over biblical accuracy.

3.5/5 (Experience: Average | Content: Marginal | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Rent it if you're looking for a good-looking historical epic and don't care about biblical accuracy.

I think that about sums up my views and thoughts, I would love to see a DC, I did like the flow on effect of Nature and certainly the final visual feast are about the best you could hope for

[Show spoiler]incredible tornadic storm, probably the best from hollywood :P

[Show spoiler] I was expecting a UFO from independence day as the shadow forlorns memphis

[SilentDawn]

My thoughts on PTA's The Master:

Some Slight Spoilers Ahead

The waves. In and out. In and out. Constantly flowing. Changing, Swiftly moving and adapting to the movement of the sea. Boats and ships go against the tide, going their own way and avoiding the consistent flow of the ocean.

Although the ships go their own way, Freddie follows the tide. He goes where he wants, he does what he wants, and his yearning for something more is constantly knocked down by his own doing. I think that's why he's such a tragic and fascinating individual, one that constantly reaches out for emotional connection, only for that very connection to be swept away by the "sea". The sea in this instance is the vast world that Freddie transverses, but never truly connects to. His home is wherever he is at the current moment, satisfying his primal desires in order to fulfill his eternal sorrow. Joaquin Phoenix brings his all for this film, and it culminates in a performance that is easily one of the greatest ever crafted. I'd even go so far to put his work in the top 5 best performances of all time. It's a devastating, moving, piteous, and mournful performance; and It's one that expresses and visualizes the limitations and flaws of man.

The opening in particular is a evocative and honest representation of post-WWII trauma and emotional turbulence, showcasing both physical and sexual insecurities that many soldiers fought with after being let loose into a world that didn't even bother to wait for them. Freddie's different jobs and encounters awaken primal and inherent urges that he cannot control, mainly because he is back in a society that unlike war, doesn't accept fundamental pleasures in the open. A specific moment always comes back to me, which is the long tracking shot of the Department Store employee while Get Thee Behind Me, Satan seductively croons over the soundtrack. In tempting and alluring imagery, Paul Thomas Anderson invites the audience to feel the same lust and primal urges that Freddie is struggling to conceal.

When all is said and done, the film is really only about Freddie. It's about his quest to become who he wants to be. He wants to be his own master, but that is only possible through the guide of another master. That's where Phillip Seymour Hoffman (RIP) comes in, portraying Lancaster Dodd. It's a relationship of opposites right from the beginning, as Dodd doesn't approve of Quell's quest to become an animal-like being. Freddie at the same time, isn't particularly interested in transcending into a state of perfect humanity. Right from the beginning, Freddie Quell is only seeking Lancaster Dodd as a master so he can be who he wants to be.

However, the relationship between Dodd and Quell isn't a duel like the relationship between Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday in There Will Be Blood. All Dodd and Quell want is to be who they want to be, and it's only their differing desires that prevent them from truly connecting. They yearn, they seek, and they ache for each other; too bad it was never meant to be.

After every rewatch of The Master, I find more and more reasons to get lost in its impeccably shot and conceived world. Filling Robert Elswit's shoes effortlessly, the cinematography by Mihai Malaimare Jr. is divine, rich, and radiant in so many ways. It's easily one of the most beautiful films ever to be committed to film, and I am insanely jealous of anyone who was able to see this in 70mm. The seashores, the withered buildings, crevices aboard ships, the wrinkles revealing meaningful emotion; It's all shot in a bold and haunting style that fluently resonates feelings to the audience.

Of course, the cinematography wouldn't be as striking if it wasn't combined with Paul Thomas Anderson's sublime direction. Free-flowing, calculated, assured, and completely bold; PTA's work here is simply orgasmic. He believes in the power of the image, and how a shadow, a sunset or a streak of cigarette smoke can effectively add to a moment that is expressing a key piece of information or emotion. In all the groundbreaking, fascinating, georgous, and lush images in this film (and there are MANY), I keep thinking about the flashbacks between Freddie and Doris. Their scenes together are stirring, indelible, poignant, and unforgettable. Well, the whole film could be described that way but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to get at here is that these scenes between Freddie and Doris are shot simply and gently, yet they pack an emotional punch that is unlike anything that I have seen in cinema in a VERY long time.

The more I see this film, the more I love it, and I'm starting to love it more than PTA's There Will Be Blood. PTA is my favorite filmmaker, he's my idol, and if I could only watch his films, I wouldn't mind a bit. There Will Be Blood will always be one of my favorite films, but the wistful and nostalgic nature of this story resonates more deeply with me than more than any film that I have seen. When the final shot rolls around, I am in tears, wishing I could be as content as Freddie; a man who became his own master. He is free, and he is happy. Freddie will go on, just as the sea flows in and out, keeping with the tide.

5/5