The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[rkolinski]

Originally Posted by Q!

I don't know where it is, but please quote your own post so we can see.

If you do a search for SPECIES under movies, you will find a picture of the BD cover art with a rating. Click on the title and then go to user reviews and you will find my review under my user name.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by rkolinski

If you do a search for SPECIES under movies, you will find a picture of the BD cover art with a rating. Click on the title and then go to user reviews and you will find my review under my user name.

lol & thanks, at first I thought you meant here on this thread and you simply edited your original post.

I'm tired...

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

A Clockwork Orange

[Show spoiler]
second time watching A Clockwork Orange in about a month or so.
and i pretty much feel the same way i did then: i don't really like the film.

i'm impressed (as always) with Kubrick's directing, i (for the most part) enjoy the story, but there are too many things that just don't fit well with me. and for the most part, these are personal small quirks about the film. in all honesty, i understand the love for the film, it's just not my cup of tea. not my time period, not my style of a film i guess sums it up.

- i think at 133 minutes the film is WAY too long. the first hour is solid, but the last half just drags for me. hard to sit through with how long some of the scenes are.

- the language. i still have almost no idea what the hell anyone is saying. the accents are hard enough to decipher, but then the "slang terms" make me even more (they should've added a bonus feature or slip sheet that tells you what words means what )

- the atmosphere. first, the atmosphere is TERRIFIC. i just don't like it. and if it's to the point where it bothers me so much that i kind of get annoyed by it, at least i know the film has an atmosphere, since it bugs me so much. it feels real. it feels grimey. it feels like you have no idea what is coming next. and that's true. so while i respect that, it just didn't / doesn't click with me.

- the music. it fits the theme and times of the film. but i'm not a fan of the music, and it drove me up the wall most of the time. a few times it fit really well and i enjoyed it and it added to some scenes. but other times i just rolled my eyes and waited for it to stop.

one thing i forgot to mention in my last review is that i really enjoyed Alex's relationship with his drooges. even though we barely see him with them (i thought the film was just him and his friends terrorizing everyone, so the film was vastly different than i imagined, which was a nice change from what i'd heard / seen in clips), you really get a sense of tension and terror from his "friends". especially when they kind of turn on him / don't inform him of everything. you really get the sense that Alex is a maniac here better than beating on a complete stranger. he spends his life with these people. these people are LIKE HIM, yet, he has a look in his eyes that says he could snap and do exactly to his friends what he's done to others. loved that rift in the relationships.

of course, exceptional job by Malcolm McDowell

but, the few plusses i found in the films didn't outweigh my personal negatives. don't get me wrong: this is not a bad film. it just wasn't my cup of tea, and after two viewings i understand the film better than i did before, but overall i just couldn't find anything to connect to to make it a better experience for me.

i'll keep it in my collection (i blind buy a lot and i never sell any blu once i get it, odd, i know), but it won't be one i watch on a regular basis. so far, my least favorite Kubrick film.

2.5/5

Great bolshy yarbles!

I can't blame you for disliking the film; it's a favorite of mine, but you've listed some good reasons to hate it.

Regarding the film's lingo, the original novel was written entirely in this slang (called Nadsat). It certainly takes some getting used to. Fortunately, there are now resources available for translating (here's for those who find themselves lost as well):

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Concor...ockwork_Orange

http://soomka.com/nadsat.html

[kelvin555]

Green Zone 7.5 out of 10

[tbizzle]

The Prestige - 4/5

Pretty good movie, I enjoyed it a lot more than my first viewing in the theaters. Jackman was really good, I loved his double! Bale was great as usual, and Michael Caine was... well that goes without saying. It was awesome to see Andy Serkis again, and especially David Bowie!

I loved the dark, obsessive and competitive world that these guys lived in. For Jackman's character, it was his obsession with revenge that drove him, (ultimately taking it too far) and for Bale's character it was the drive to win, and he showed his pure dedication to the craft by staying in character the whole movie. And he bested Jackman every time, although the pistol trick was pretty awesome!

The Lovely Bones - 3.5/5

Good movie, I liked Peter Jackson's directing. Dialogue was a bit scripty at times, therefore acting was a tad sketchy at times as well, but for the most part everyone was fine. Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon, however, were great. I thought the movie was a bit weak here and there, but for the most part I liked it. I'm interested to see what Jackson is gonna direct next (though recent rumors point to The Hobbit, which would be awesome!)

[P@t_Mtl]

Stagecoach from Criterion

No comment on the movie of course, seen it multiple time and it's a classic for westerns. The Blu-ray is the best I ever saw this movie looking and I have seen some horrible copies of it in my life. It may not be a total reference PQ wise but it sure look's amazing.

A few more weeks for my next classic purchase, Kino's release Of Steamboat Bill Jr.

[surfdude12]

Gattaca

Film: 3/5
-recommended by jhiggy
-overall, a good film, I enjoyed it and was entertained.
-great themes on

[Show spoiler]purification of geneology and elimination of risk of any major diseases for newborns. Of course, some problems with this: (1) the act of suppressing diseases will itself create new diseases -- fact, ask any geneticist or microbiologist, (2) at some point the line in the sand gets silly, as we see with Vincent's parents telling the doc "ok, we dont want the kid to have heart disease, etc, but as far as behavior stuff,etc (non-health), we'd like to leave that to chance", to which the doc goes "oh no! we'd want to make sure its best quality"...who decides whats "best quality"? at some point its a subjective judgment...maybe having certain behavioral traits is better than not having them. and (3) as the movie explicitly says "there is no gene for fate," in the end science is still slave to the elements of fate (or whatever you chose to call this unknown thing that overrides all)

-great color pallete similar to the Fountain (brown/grey and the characteristic lime green/yellow)
-solid performances from Hawke and Thurman, and especially Law -- best I've seen him perform that I can remember
-I think my major gripe was that the script just didn't have as much meat to it as I thought.

[Show spoiler]Yes, it showed Hawke as a normal kid, with a genetic brother, and how they'd swim to compete -- all good stuff, but nothing to write home about. Then we see Hawke cleaning at Gattaca with dreams to "one day be on the other side of that glass" -- he was the Rudy of a futuristic NASA. Then we see Hawke call that dude in the yellow pages to get hooked up with Law's identity -- again, a cool plot twist, but seemingly unoriginal. At that point, the film spent the next 45 minutes (up until the 1:00 mark) with a cat and mouse game of Hawke evading a detective -- at that point I thought "this is a drama that happens to be sci-fi, not a sci-fi that happens to be drama". Not until the 1:00 mark did the plot take off, and up until then, I was getting a little bored. After that point, the suspense went up a bit and it became a drama/thriller, but even a mild one at that. Then there was a twist with the detective and Hawke who are bros and a re-enactment of the swim scene -- just very odd and forced IMO, didn't come off as genuine. I thought the actor playing Hawke's bro was very weak, but perhaps you're supposed to give a robotic look.

. All in all, not a bad film, but not a great one either. But for the interesting coverage of the genetic futuristic themes (which may very well be relevant in the near future), I wouldn't have been very engaged.

PQ and AQ were good. 4/5

[BladeRunner2007]

The Fog (2005) 0.5/5

I wish I could rate it 0/5 stars

[jhiggy23]

Collateral (blu)

PQ: 4.5 stars (out of 5)

AQ: 4.5 stars (out of 5)

Film: 3 1/2 stars (out of 4)

Rottentomatoes: 87%

Ebert: 3 1/2 stars (out of 4)

Oscar Nominations: two (editing and best supporting actor)

___________________


This is a film that could have easily become muddled in cliche, but uses the typical and common aspects of its genre to result in a truly great film. While the film seems to be a pretty standard thriller, I've always thought of it more as a character study. The dialogue is always interesting and you really get to know both Foxx and Cruise's characters. Foxx was great in his role and deserved his oscar nomination, but Cruise steals every scene and for some reason didn't get the awards recognition he deserved. His delivery of lines such as "I didn't kill him. The bullets and the fall killed him" and many of his speeches in the cab are delivered exceptionally well.

I like the aura that surrounds him in the film, that becomes even more interesting when Ruffalo's character mentions the three murders and the suicide of a cab driver in Oakland, and how the cops always thought there was someone else in the cab. This little story makes the film that much more interesting to me, because it seems as though Cruise's character has done this exact same thing before. What will be the result this time?

I also like the nods to fate, with everything from Foxx picking up Jada Pinkett Smith, to his next fare being Cruise, who initially walks by before Foxx calls to him.

What I find most fascinating about the film is the glimpses of Cruise's character's childhood. Is he a product of his upbringing or did something else happen? He's been doing this for six years, but what did he do before? His character is one of the most interesting killers I've seen on film.

I also like the distinct sense of realism in the film. This is an LA you don't see on film, and the small touches like the coyotes is a great touch.

Highly recommended.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

The Lovely Bones - 3.5/5

Good movie, I liked Peter Jackson's directing. Dialogue was a bit scripty at times, therefore acting was a tad sketchy at times as well, but for the most part everyone was fine. Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon, however, were great. I thought the movie was a bit weak here and there, but for the most part I liked it. I'm interested to see what Jackson is gonna direct next (though recent rumors point to The Hobbit, which would be awesome!)

Well i thought the movie was incredibly powerful, i gave it 4.5/5. Very very emotional movie. Ohh and the book is great too.

[JLant19]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

The Prestige - 4/5

Pretty good movie, I enjoyed it a lot more than my first viewing in the theaters. Jackman was really good, I loved his double! Bale was great as usual, and Michael Caine was... well that goes without saying. It was awesome to see Andy Serkis again, and especially David Bowie!

I loved the dark, obsessive and competitive world that these guys lived in. For Jackman's character, it was his obsession with revenge that drove him, (ultimately taking it too far) and for Bale's character it was the drive to win, and he showed his pure dedication to the craft by staying in character the whole movie. And he bested Jackman every time, although the pistol trick was pretty awesome!

The Lovely Bones - 3.5/5

Good movie, I liked Peter Jackson's directing. Dialogue was a bit scripty at times, therefore acting was a tad sketchy at times as well, but for the most part everyone was fine. Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon, however, were great. I thought the movie was a bit weak here and there, but for the most part I liked it. I'm interested to see what Jackson is gonna direct next (though recent rumors point to The Hobbit, which would be awesome!)

I give both of these 4.5/5

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Gattaca

Film: 3/5
-recommended by jhiggy
-overall, a good film, I enjoyed it and was entertained.
-great themes on

[Show spoiler]purification of geneology and elimination of risk of any major diseases for newborns. Of course, some problems with this: (1) the act of suppressing diseases will itself create new diseases -- fact, ask any geneticist or microbiologist, (2) at some point the line in the sand gets silly, as we see with Vincent's parents telling the doc "ok, we dont want the kid to have heart disease, etc, but as far as behavior stuff,etc (non-health), we'd like to leave that to chance", to which the doc goes "oh no! we'd want to make sure its best quality"...who decides whats "best quality"? at some point its a subjective judgment...maybe having certain behavioral traits is better than not having them. and (3) as the movie explicitly says "there is no gene for fate," in the end science is still slave to the elements of fate (or whatever you chose to call this unknown thing that overrides all)

-great color pallete similar to the Fountain (brown/grey and the characteristic lime green/yellow)
-solid performances from Hawke and Thurman, and especially Law -- best I've seen him perform that I can remember
-I think my major gripe was that the script just didn't have as much meat to it as I thought.

[Show spoiler]Yes, it showed Hawke as a normal kid, with a genetic brother, and how they'd swim to compete -- all good stuff, but nothing to write home about. Then we see Hawke cleaning at Gattaca with dreams to "one day be on the other side of that glass" -- he was the Rudy of a futuristic NASA. Then we see Hawke call that dude in the yellow pages to get hooked up with Law's identity -- again, a cool plot twist, but seemingly unoriginal. At that point, the film spent the next 45 minutes (up until the 1:00 mark) with a cat and mouse game of Hawke evading a detective -- at that point I thought "this is a drama that happens to be sci-fi, not a sci-fi that happens to be drama". Not until the 1:00 mark did the plot take off, and up until then, I was getting a little bored. After that point, the suspense went up a bit and it became a drama/thriller, but even a mild one at that. Then there was a twist with the detective and Hawke who are bros and a re-enactment of the swim scene -- just very odd and forced IMO, didn't come off as genuine. I thought the actor playing Hawke's bro was very weak, but perhaps you're supposed to give a robotic look.

. All in all, not a bad film, but not a great one either. But for the interesting coverage of the genetic futuristic themes (which may very well be relevant in the near future), I wouldn't have been very engaged.

PQ and AQ were good. 4/5

I like how irrespective of whether you like a film, you still put the effort in to try to understand it. I do think, however, you missed the central theme of the film and the reason for such things as the swimming competition.

[Show spoiler]The tagline of the film is "there is no gene for the human spirit." The point of this quote and the film is that while you can decide what all the most favorable traits are, there is no trait that guarantees a person will put forth the effort and determination needed to succeed in life. That's one reason why the brother seems to be so wooden--he had all the best traits but he's still just a cop. That's why Jude Law, in what surely should have been an Oscar nom role, was the way he was. He had all the best genes but still was only second best. The point of the film is that while the selection of genes and the science in the film is occurring right now and is going to be reality in the not too distant future, there are major flaws with it. It may make us live longer, but will it really improve us as much as they think?

I also think you missed the other prominent theme, which dealt with profiling and the future version of racism. While race and religion are the two things that ppl are most often prejudiced against others about currently, in the future it very well could be the types of genes they have or how they were born. The concluding scene in the space shuttle, showing women, asians, african americans, eurasians, and caucasians, is very deliberate. It's meant to show that those things will not matter in the future, but genes and births will.

The doctor also has a fascinating quote about his son, and how he wasn't all they paid for, but who knows what he can really do. That quote is essential to the film, in that it goes back to the central theme that you can pick and choose whether a child will have perfect vision, a good heart, and other such things, but fate and the person's own will will determine whether he or she succeeds.

So, while I think you are one of the few who always has very solid and legitimate reasons for liking and disliking a film, I think you missed the key point of the film and the scenes that supported it. But hey, it happens to me all the time and then I read your reviews and it suddenly makes more sense! Speaking of which, I really want to watch 2001 again through your lens, especially since it's your fav film.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Well i thought the movie was incredibly powerful, i gave it 4.5/5. Very very emotional movie. Ohh and the book is great too.

If I ever get through Stephen King's 1200 page Under the Dome, I'll get to read it...!

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I like how irrespective of whether you like a film, you still put the effort in to try to understand it. I do think, however, you missed the central theme of the film and the reason for such things as the swimming competition.

[Show spoiler]The tagline of the film is "there is no gene for the human spirit." The point of this quote and the film is that while you can decide what all the most favorable traits are, there is no trait that guarantees a person will put forth the effort and determination needed to succeed in life. That's one reason why the brother seems to be so wooden--he had all the best traits but he's still just a cop. That's why Jude Law, in what surely should have been an Oscar nom role, was the way he was. He had all the best genes but still was only second best. The point of the film is that while the selection of genes and the science in the film is occurring right now and is going to be reality in the not too distant future, there are major flaws with it. It may make us live longer, but will it really improve us as much as they think?

I also think you missed the other prominent theme, which dealt with profiling and the future version of racism. While race and religion are the two things that ppl are most often prejudiced against others about currently, in the future it very well could be the types of genes they have or how they were born. The concluding scene in the space shuttle, showing women, asians, african americans, eurasians, and caucasians, is very deliberate. It's meant to show that those things will not matter in the future, but genes and births will.

The doctor also has a fascinating quote about his son, and how he wasn't all they paid for, but who knows what he can really do. That quote is essential to the film, in that it goes back to the central theme that you can pick and choose whether a child will have perfect vision, a good heart, and other such things, but fate and the person's own will will determine whether he or she succeeds.

So, while I think you are one of the few who always has very solid and legitimate reasons for liking and disliking a film, I think you missed the key point of the film and the scenes that supported it. But hey, it happens to me all the time and then I read your reviews and it suddenly makes more sense! Speaking of which, I really want to watch 2001 again through your lens, especially since it's your fav film.

GATTACA really grows on you-- I've seen it 3 times I think since it's release-- each time the movie is actually better after watching it vs during. Lots of stuff to think about-- possibly very accurate on our future. Haunting ending I thought. 4 out of 5

[ajvdbg]

Knocked Up 4/5
Very funny - Love how the wife curses the husband.

[JLant19]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

Knocked Up 4/5
Very funny - Love how the wife curses the husband.

This film is amazing!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

Knocked Up 4/5
Very funny - Love how the wife curses the husband.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really didn't like Knocked Up. I didn't think it was all that funny, I wasn't a huge fan of the story, and I can't stand Heigl. I much prefer 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad. I gave it 2 stars (out of 4).

[JLant19]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I know I'm in the minority, but I really didn't like Knocked Up. I didn't think it was all that funny, I wasn't a huge fan of the story, and I can't stand Heigl. I much prefer 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad. I gave it 2 stars (out of 4).

I actually think your in the majority ha. Most people I know prefer 40 year old and Superbad more as well.

[scratchy]

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - 10/10

Simply a hilarious movie.

[ajvdbg]

Originally Posted by JLant19

I actually think your in the majority ha. Most people I know prefer 40 year old and Superbad more as well.

My sister hated it after I recommended it so highly...but I smiled and laughed through the whole thing. I also love 40 yr old virgin and Super Bad, Apatow flicks are great!