The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[JLant19]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

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!

Yea I love his 3 directorial films

[Q?]

Originally Posted by scratchy

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

Simply a hilarious movie.

Totally agree!

"...precious bodily fluids."

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by JLant19

Yea I love his 3 directorial films

Well...he didn't direct Superbad, remember.

[ajvdbg]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Well...he didn't direct Superbad, remember.

But he did produce it...

[Al_The_Strange]

“The Dark Knight.”

Having established Batman as a butt-kicking ninja-trained hero in “Batman Begins,” “TDK” takes the characters and story into the next level; one that is deeper, darker, more convoluted, and ultimately more intense. I think that while the previous film still bears the semblance of an average superhero film (not that it is average though), this film strikes me more as a crime drama; there are no megalomaniac plots or outlandish supervillians, the focus is more on the ramifications of Batman’s actions (socially and personally) and the ongoing conflict between order and chaos within Gotham City.

The story has its share of action (the police escort scene has got to be one of the best car chase scenes ever!), but none of it is as frivolous as it would be in any other action movie. All of the action and violence occurs through the tragic consequences of the story, which takes on many drastic twists and turns (sometimes straining to suspend some disbelief). At its core, the story focuses really well on the themes of corruption (again, both social and personal), terrorism (strong parallels to modern issues, and the film even includes a little blip about privacy invasion), and morality (Batman’s moral code is tested and pushed to its limit; much of the story’s conflicts revolve around him trying to maintain it in himself and others).

Going hand-in-hand with the story is a strong group of characters. Bruce Wayne probably doesn’t get as much development as he had in “Batman Begins,” but the Joker and Harvey Dent definitely take precedence and are portrayed perfectly. Acting is excellent all around (though I’ll admit that Maggie Gyllenhaal’s acting is a little iffy here); Heath Ledger is especially noteworthy.

The biggest thing that catches my attention in this film (and in all things in general) is duality. The Joker is presented as the perfect foil to Batman; both characters are equal and opposite, and exert an equal and opposite force onto Gotham City. The Joker’s lines say it the best: “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.”

As such, the writing is really impressive, as is the film’s direction. Much of the photography is great, and the editing style is very interesting. The production value is high; the film has some impressive set pieces, locations, costumes, and a slick style overall. And the music score is awesome as well.

It currently remains my favorite among superhero/comic-book films.

5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 5/5, film: 5/5)

The Blu-Ray is an awesome deal. The PQ is very sharp and clean. There may be some slight DNR, but most fine details remain intact. Color and contrast are excellent. Sound quality is excellent; dialogue is clean and crisp, and the louder action scenes are decently bombastic.

PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 5/5





Why so serious?!!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

But he did produce it...

I know.

[JLant19]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Well...he didn't direct Superbad, remember.

Yea I know, I was referring to Funny People. Yea I did make it sound like I meant Superbad. My bad guys.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

But he did produce it...

yeah but he also produced...

Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
You Don't Mess With The Zohan
Year One
Get Him To The Greek
Drillbit Taylor
Forgetting Sarah Marshell
Walk Hard
Talladega Nights
Kicking and Screaming
Anchorman
The Cable Guy

Let's just say, he's produced so many comedies, he might as well have his own sub-genre.

[surfdude12]

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?

Yeah I guess I considered

[Show spoiler] my point about "There is no gene for fate" (as a major disadvantage of genetic perfection) as the embodiment of that concept and your point. Hawke narrated "there is no gene for fate" right as the discussed Law or the brother's failure despite the genetic perfection. However, I do personally prefer "human spirit" as it covers the Hawke-situation of an imperfect genetic being too! Like I said, these futuristic genetic concepts are fascinating, but I just find the movie industry is over-saturated with this subject matter, so am not easily moved by it. Plus, I didn't feel the movie script had enough teeth to cover it and the film suffered from other factors such as limited sets (Gattaca + Hawke's apt), limited budget, and repetitive scenes. But hey, its just my 2 cents

.

[Show spoiler]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.

Yes, this is fascinating. THe way you describe it now, I can see

[Show spoiler] how discrimination could be a problem. I had solely looked at it from a professional-competency perspective (akin to what college you went to), as Hawke said "my resume is in my cells." So didn't take it as far as a level of race/religion. THe film seemed all about professional qualification. But i can see it heading to religion/race level discrimination.

[surfdude12]

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'm with you, didn't care for it either.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Yeah I guess I considered

[Show spoiler] my point about "There is no gene for fate" (as a major disadvantage of genetic perfection) as the embodiment of that concept and your point. Hawke narrated "there is no gene for fate" right as the discussed Law or the brother's failure despite the genetic perfection. However, I do personally prefer "human spirit" as it covers the Hawke-situation of an imperfect genetic being too! Like I said, these futuristic genetic concepts are fascinating, but I just find the movie industry is over-saturated with this subject matter, so am not easily moved by it. Plus, I didn't feel the movie script had enough teeth to cover it and the film suffered from other factors such as limited sets (Gattaca + Hawke's apt), limited budget, and repetitive scenes. But hey, its just my 2 cents

.



Yes, this is fascinating. THe way you describe it now, I can see

[Show spoiler] how discrimination could be a problem. I had solely looked at it from a professional-competency perspective (akin to what college you went to), as Hawke said "my resume is in my cells." So didn't take it as far as a level of race/religion. THe film seemed all about professional qualification. But i can see it heading to religion/race level discrimination.

It's all good, you certainly provide a basis for your lukewarm reception of the film. Maybe you're getting back at me for Howards End

[surfdude12]

Walkabout

Film: 5/5
-second viewing
-much better on second viewing and ironed out some issues I had discussed with jhiggy and squid.
-some of these were

[Show spoiler]
-why didnt the kids follow the car tracks? 2 reasons: (1) the car was driving over alternating grass/sand landscape, so following the cars tracks would involve tracking them back over alternating sand (tracks) and grass (no tracks) areas. not easy. (2) after the car blows up, the girl goes to the car, gets her stuff and goes back to her brother and tells him "dad said to go on without him". by lying, she is protecting her 7-8 y.o. brothers emotions, rather than saying "daddy is burning to a crisp." to head back to the car and check the tracks means to emotionally harm her brother by letting him see his daddy burning.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after their dad dies? she tells her bro that "dad said to go on and he'll follow us". she has to keep a calm composure to protect her brothers emotions. the kid is 7-8.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after the aborigine dies? i'm not sure he dies. it shows him (a) hanging with his two arms on two tree branches, (b) ants on him (means nothing by itself), and (c) his eyes are blinking...so he's obviously alive. further confirmation of this: when the boy and girl are back on the road, a cut back to the tree shows he is gone. i think the girl knows he's alive. if your standing right in front of a guy who is alive and hanging with his arms on tree branches, you'll see him breathing or his eyes blinking. i could be wrong, but his eyes are definitely blinking and the cut shot definitely shows him gone.
-the themes of the film have been talked about already: miscommunication, and are covered wonderfully. cinematography is A+

PQ is 4.5/5 and AQ 3.5/5

[tommyboy81]

Invictus. 7/10

Got the urge to watch it with all of this World Cup Soccer going on.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

It's all good, you certainly provide a basis for your lukewarm reception of the film. Maybe you're getting back at me for Howards End

I think you are right on here!! I'm still bitterly sore over that, and Wings of Desire! Ouch! But your review response will be remembered! That was rough. "you missed the central theme"? Just merciless! (especially when I wasn't that far off! )

[Show spoiler]Kiddin dude, your comments were great. Obviously I wrote as much as i did to specifically get your feedback, to see what i missed. i really wanted to like this, and perhaps it will grow on me with another viewing. i'm definitely open to it

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I'm with you, didn't care for it either.

Me three.

[Show spoiler]I walked out after 30 minutes.

[ajvdbg]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Me three.

[Show spoiler]I walked out after 30 minutes.

I did the same for Pineapple Express; thought it was dumb. But I know many have said the same for Knocked Up. Have not heard many who did not like 40 yr old Virgin...just varied tastes...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Walkabout

Film: 5/5
-second viewing
-much better on second viewing and ironed out some issues I had discussed with jhiggy and squid.
-some of these were

[Show spoiler]
-why didnt the kids follow the car tracks? 2 reasons: (1) the car was driving over alternating grass/sand landscape, so following the cars tracks would involve tracking them back over alternating sand (tracks) and grass (no tracks) areas. not easy. (2) after the car blows up, the girl goes to the car, gets her stuff and goes back to her brother and tells him "dad said to go on without him". by lying, she is protecting her 7-8 y.o. brothers emotions, rather than saying "daddy is burning to a crisp." to head back to the car and check the tracks means to emotionally harm her brother by letting him see his daddy burning.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after their dad dies? she tells her bro that "dad said to go on and he'll follow us". she has to keep a calm composure to protect her brothers emotions. the kid is 7-8.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after the aborigine dies? i'm not sure he dies. it shows him (a) hanging with his two arms on two tree branches, (b) ants on him (means nothing by itself), and (c) his eyes are blinking...so he's obviously alive. further confirmation of this: when the boy and girl are back on the road, a cut back to the tree shows he is gone. i think the girl knows he's alive. if your standing right in front of a guy who is alive and hanging with his arms on tree branches, you'll see him breathing or his eyes blinking. i could be wrong, but his eyes are definitely blinking and the cut shot definitely shows him gone.-the themes of the film have been talked about already: miscommunication, and are covered wonderfully. cinematography is A+

PQ is 4.5/5 and AQ 3.5/5

I bolded some of you spoiler.

What? I had rewound that scene a couple times because I was upset/curious and wanted to examine it to see

[Show spoiler]if he was for sure dead. To find meaning. Did I really miss the blinking? Really? Did I miss the cutback where he was not in the tree? I watched it over and over because I was yearning for a complete message. Am I that big of a failure? Dang it.

Your explanation about the kids not being sad about Dad answers all my questions for sure and makes sense.

So.....you have buttoned it all up. Its turns out to be a great movie.

[Show spoiler]All except for the pedophile director and cinematographer.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Walkabout

Film: 5/5
-second viewing
-much better on second viewing and ironed out some issues I had discussed with jhiggy and squid.
-some of these were

[Show spoiler]
-why didnt the kids follow the car tracks? 2 reasons: (1) the car was driving over alternating grass/sand landscape, so following the cars tracks would involve tracking them back over alternating sand (tracks) and grass (no tracks) areas. not easy. (2) after the car blows up, the girl goes to the car, gets her stuff and goes back to her brother and tells him "dad said to go on without him". by lying, she is protecting her 7-8 y.o. brothers emotions, rather than saying "daddy is burning to a crisp." to head back to the car and check the tracks means to emotionally harm her brother by letting him see his daddy burning.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after their dad dies? she tells her bro that "dad said to go on and he'll follow us". she has to keep a calm composure to protect her brothers emotions. the kid is 7-8.
-why dont the boy and girl show emotion after the aborigine dies? i'm not sure he dies. it shows him (a) hanging with his two arms on two tree branches, (b) ants on him (means nothing by itself), and (c) his eyes are blinking...so he's obviously alive. further confirmation of this: when the boy and girl are back on the road, a cut back to the tree shows he is gone. i think the girl knows he's alive. if your standing right in front of a guy who is alive and hanging with his arms on tree branches, you'll see him breathing or his eyes blinking. i could be wrong, but his eyes are definitely blinking and the cut shot definitely shows him gone.
-the themes of the film have been talked about already: miscommunication, and are covered wonderfully. cinematography is A+

PQ is 4.5/5 and AQ 3.5/5

[Show spoiler]I remember him blinking and wondering whether he was alive or not. What's clear is that the children think he's dead. They obviously would not leave him there if they thought he was alive. In order for the film to make sense and for its main theme of communication to shine through, I believe he must be dead.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I think you are right on here!! I'm still bitterly sore over that, and Wings of Desire! Ouch! But your review response will be remembered! That was rough. "you missed the central theme"? Just merciless! (especially when I wasn't that far off! )

[Show spoiler]Kiddin dude, your comments were great. Obviously I wrote as much as i did to specifically get your feedback, to see what i missed. i really wanted to like this, and perhaps it will grow on me with another viewing. i'm definitely open to it

hahaha sorry if it seemed harsh, I didn't mean it to be; you know I appreciate the effort you put in to reviewing a film, whether you like it or not.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by ajvdbg

I did the same for Pineapple Express; thought it was dumb. But I know many have said the same for Knocked Up. Have not heard many who did not like 40 yr old Virgin...just varied tastes...

Pineapple Express is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I rank it in my top 5 worst of all-time.