The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Q?]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I was interested in seeing it because of Kelly, so I'll add it to my queue per your recommendation.

I just got back from seeing The Girl Who Played With Fire. Review to come later.

Looking forward to read about your thoughts for both movies.

[J.Cornelius]

Maybe your review Of White Ribbon should have included the spoiler tags you alluded to, the review is stellar with great insights however for someone who has not seen the movie what you describe about the ending will be difficult to overcome. I am still anxious to see the movie but now in the back of my mind will be this nagging feeling that the ending could have been more resolute. Perhaps I am nit picking I don't know but saying you disliked the ending and then giving the reason within a spoiler tag would have been more appropriate.

[spolcyc]

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

Well since the ending is

[Show spoiler] intentionally ambiguous

, I'm not sure how it could be predictable, IMO.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

I'd like to see what films you consider to be great then. A .5 out of 10? Come on...

[surfdude12]

Days of Heaven

Film: 3/5
-I thought the direction/cinematography was excellent, A+. In fact, it may have been too good (see spoiler)
-I did not care much for the plot/script.
-

[Show spoiler]
-My major issue with the film was the plot/script. Specifically, the lack of character development early on, and even throughout the film, the presumed protagonists (Gere, girlfriend, girl) were so undeveloped that I felt no sympathy whatsoever for them, other than the girl who was an innocent bystander. A few reasons for this:
(1) In this 90 minute film, I'd give a conservative estimate that 2/3 of it was cinematography/non-dialogue scenes, which leaves only 30 minutes for the entire script. That's not much. I think I was more informed about how many grains of wheat are in one bushel than I was in who the Gere/girlfriend characters are, and what is the nature of their relationship. Don't get me wrong: I loved Malicks direction, but it can't compensate for a flawed script. It would be like me trying to make up for a lousy entree with a killer desert.
(2) Gere/girlfriend cheated the farmer (i.e., lied to him), so we're still to root for them?
(3) Gere/girlfriend chose to stay at the farm, to their detriment, but we're still to root for them? I get that they're in this struggle for survival, but aren't they still the protagonists? How then are we to feel compassion and be on edge for them, when, say, Gere flies away and leaves her? And then returns? I'll honestly say that during all of this I was thinking "I couldn't care less about all of this". Maybe I'm a cold hearted SOB, but Gere/girlfriend characters didn't strike any sympathy chord with me (partially because I didn't know who they are, and partially because of their conduct in the film), so this likely affected my enjoyment of these critical sequences until the end of the film.
I'll emphasize that this is just my take on the characters, so i'm not judging the film objectively, but my subjective take on it.

PQ and AQ were great, I'd say 4/5.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

What is a good film to u? Got Em!!

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

OK........ ".5" Well cant agree with you on that but is your Opinion.

[jhiggy23]

The Girl Who Played With Fire (theater)

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

Rottentomatoes: 64% (many of the negative reviews are so poorly written that they shouldn't even count--I read every single review on RT)

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


Where do I begin? I've had so many thoughts of how to write this review since I returned home. I guess I'll start by comparing it to its predecessor, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. That film is a four star film and will go down as one of the great international/foreign thriller films of all-time (this is not an opinion--some things are objective). That film was a masterpiece of acting, directing, writing, story, and pacing. It is superior in almost all categories to The Girl Who Played With Fire.

I have to state that The Girl Who Played with Fire is my favorite book of the trilogy, as it is for every single person I know who has read the books. The reason? Because Salander is the main character, is in almost the entire book, and her back story is really explored.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is by far the easiest of the three books to adapt. Each book progressively gets more difficult for adaptation. This book, which was 600 pages, was trimmed to a two hour and ten minute film. It does a good job of picking and choosing what to include, deciding to leave out many sub-plots and characters, which I personally don't mind. It's just not an easy film to adapt, and all things considered the writer did a good job.

I was worried about this film since it was my favorite book, but more so because it uses a different director and writer and was shot for television, not for theater. Therefore, it has a lower budget. However, I must say that there were only a handful of scenes where the budget is noticeable. For the most part, it doesn't appear significantly different than the prior film. Direction, cinematography, and score are again solid.

I found the casting choice for Niedermann very good and liked that the real life Paulo Roberto was in the film. I didn't like the casting choice for Zalachenko, however.

This film obviously is the middle film in the trilogy. The first film/book is a standalone in many ways. The second and third are one long story that aren't separated at all. This film is more of a setup for the third film than anything else, so of course it won't be as strong as the first film. It does do a very good job of setting things up, though and I look forward to the third film in the fall. I will def be buying this film, as well.

This is a three star film that is very good but does not reach the level of greatness of the prior film. However, it gets an extra half star bump, as I sometimes give when something in the film is so extraordinary. Here, it's the performance of Rapace. The American remake is completely pointless because nobody, I don't care how talented, can come close to matching her performances. She embodies the role to a level rarely seen. It is one of the great casting choices I've seen in international cinema.


Note: I know many of you probably think I'm a fanboy (which I admit) and will give these films good reviews no matter what. That's not true. I've always thought that if you love the source of a movie, usually a book, you're a harsher critic on the film. The Beach, for instance, is one of my favorite books but I hate the movie. I am extremely tought on films based on books I love. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is just such an incredible film that it bypasses opinion. This film is also very good but just not as good as the first. I hope I appear unbiased, because I can assure you I am.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Days of Heaven

Film: 3/5
-I thought the direction/cinematography was excellent, A+. In fact, it may have been too good (see spoiler)
-I did not care much for the plot/script.
-

[Show spoiler]
-My major issue with the film was the plot/script. Specifically, the lack of character development early on, and even throughout the film, the presumed protagonists (Gere, girlfriend, girl) were so undeveloped that I felt no sympathy whatsoever for them, other than the girl who was an innocent bystander. A few reasons for this:
(1) In this 90 minute film, I'd give a conservative estimate that 2/3 of it was cinematography/non-dialogue scenes, which leaves only 30 minutes for the entire script. That's not much. I think I was more informed about how many grains of wheat are in one bushel than I was in who the Gere/girlfriend characters are, and what is the nature of their relationship. Don't get me wrong: I loved Malicks direction, but it can't compensate for a flawed script. It would be like me trying to make up for a lousy entree with a killer desert.
(2) Gere/girlfriend cheated the farmer (i.e., lied to him), so we're still to root for them?
(3) Gere/girlfriend chose to stay at the farm, to their detriment, but we're still to root for them? I get that they're in this struggle for survival, but aren't they still the protagonists? How then are we to feel compassion and be on edge for them, when, say, Gere flies away and leaves her? And then returns? I'll honestly say that during all of this I was thinking "I couldn't care less about all of this". Maybe I'm a cold hearted SOB, but Gere/girlfriend characters didn't strike any sympathy chord with me (partially because I didn't know who they are, and partially because of their conduct in the film), so this likely affected my enjoyment of these critical sequences until the end of the film.
I'll emphasize that this is just my take on the characters, so i'm not judging the film objectively, but my subjective take on it.

PQ and AQ were great, I'd say 4/5.

I def don't blame you for your review, as the points you make are the ones that are most commonly brought against the film. That being said, the movie is not about the characters. I should send you the section of my thesis on this film--I think you'll have a greater appreciation for what it means.

[Show spoiler]
While Terrence Malick’s first film is often considered a masterpiece, his second film—Days of Heaven (1978)—is likewise seen as a triumph, but it is a much more ambitious and troublesome film. Once again filmed along the Midwestern frontier (although set in the Texas Panhandle rather than the Dakota badlands), Days of Heaven is the story of Bill, a mill worker in Chicago during the early 1900s, his girlfriend Abby, and his little sister Linda. The film opens with a brief montage of photos depicting the time period (a technique that Malick uses only in this one film), and then shows Bill at work. Moments into the film Bill has an argument with his foreman (for which the reasons and the argument itself are never explained, and the sound of which is obscured) and ends up killing him. This causes him to flee with Abby and Linda to the Texas Panhandle and accept jobs as harvest laborers for a nameless farmer. Under the guise of brother and sister, Bill and Abby work in the fields until it is evident that the Farmer has fallen for Abby. This fact, in conjunction with the knowledge that the Farmer is dying, leads Bill to devise a plan for Abby to marry the Farmer and inherit the money when he dies. Not surprisingly this plan fails and the movie ends with Bill killing the Farmer and then being killed himself in the ensuing flight from police.

One indication of Malick’s growth as a filmmaker is his reliance once again on setting, and a naturalistic landscape. This film, more so than his three other films, displays Malick’s propensity towards visual sublimity in each and every frame. Shot almost entirely during the so-called “magic hours” of dusk and dawn (where the sun cannot be seen lighting the sky), Days of Heaven is Malick’s most wholly visual film, with hardly an image not framed in the resplendent simplicity of the Texas prairie. By shooting during these specific hours, Malick is able to illuminate the grandeur of the endless fields surrounding the Farmer’s house, which further signifies the literal and figurative desolation of both the home and the characters (or, for that matter, any of the workers who sought work in the fields during the time). These grand panoramas also develop and enhance a feeling of nostalgia in the film, a feeling not readily apparent in dialogue and characterization. Ultimately, by framing many of the shots in the endless terrain of the fields, it seems as though Malick is trying to comment upon humankind’s relative inconsequentiality as it relates to the greatest force on earth—nature. Days of Heaven clearly displays the prominence that nature plays over its characters, and subsequently its plot, to the effect that the characters of the film remain wholly at a distance from the viewer (a criticism that is common to Malick’s films) and seem to be completely insignificant at times.

This irrelevance is most evident during the concluding scenes, in which locusts arrive and engulf the fields, coupled with a ravaging fire aimed at eradicating the locusts. This elongated scene is a clear homage to silent films, where visuals can be both used to tell a literal and metaphorical story. The literal aspect of this scene aims at providing a significant conflict that will conclude the central conflict of the love story and propel the film into its final act. This is crucially and ingeniously developed by Malick. While the central story of the film up until this point has been the love story between Bill, Abby, and the Farmer, Malick concludes this conflict rather hastily upon the arrival of the locusts. The inclusion of this swarm and its ensuing mayhem is ingenious in that it provides a platform for Malick to conclude his love story with Bill’s murder of the Farmer (which moves the story into its final act—the fleeing of Bill), and to provide a subtle metaphorical allusion in the process. The arrival of the locusts is clearly Biblical in nature, referring to God’s punishment and judgment upon sinners (as much of the film can be viewed through a Biblical lens), but its more subtle purpose is to display the inconsequentiality of its characters in regards to nature. The love story that is at the heart of the film is immediately overshadowed upon the influx of the locusts and the subsequent fires, displaying just how insignificant it is in the grand scheme of the world.

While conflicts such as love may matter to people both in film and in life, nature ultimately has the power to overwhelm and influence conflicts such as these. Malick films this invariable truth by providing little dialogue or sound other than the burning of the fields during the fight between Bill and the Farmer. It is as if he is showing the viewer that conflicts among people are miniscule and petty when compared to the conflicts in nature. The film opens with Bill, Abby, and Linda fleeing the law and arriving in the apparent idealistic haven of the Texas prairie, seeking to start over and ultimately make a life for themselves, but this dream is shattered when it becomes apparent that nature can be uncompromising, and in the end can decide the fate of each individual. It is this lack of control over one’s own destiny that Malick seeks to convey to the viewer, thus warning of nature’s utter unpredictability, while still displaying its magnificence in the process.

I just copied and pasted above one portion of the thesis. Hope it helps.

[lDlisturb3d]

Predators

Ok first off im not hard to please at all when it comes to movies, in addition im a huge predator fan but WTF! I was waiting the entire movie for it to get good and it failed horribly. Granted there a few parts of the movie that are crazy but the overall movie was bad IMO. From the beginning of the Movie until a hour in i was pretty disappointed.

[Show spoiler]How about the fact of the horrible cgi during the whole movie, the fake blood from the predators head, or the fact the they had to make it CGI when the fell into the lake????? Why? The fact that the "Dr." wanted to stay so he poisoned the chick COME ON.

The story was ok but seriously the Orignal Predator with Arnold is way better the only thing i liked about this movie vs the old is

[Show spoiler]The battle scene with the Yakuza assassin, and the fight between the two predators.

Movie 3/5

Stick to the originals.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Predators 3/5

Totally Agree

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Predators 8/10

The first good predator movie in 23 years

Totally Disagree

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Days of Heaven

Film: 3/5
-I thought the direction/cinematography was excellent, A+. In fact, it may have been too good (see spoiler)
-I did not care much for the plot/script.
-

[Show spoiler]
-My major issue with the film was the plot/script. Specifically, the lack of character development early on, and even throughout the film, the presumed protagonists (Gere, girlfriend, girl) were so undeveloped that I felt no sympathy whatsoever for them, other than the girl who was an innocent bystander. A few reasons for this:
(1) In this 90 minute film, I'd give a conservative estimate that 2/3 of it was cinematography/non-dialogue scenes, which leaves only 30 minutes for the entire script. That's not much. I think I was more informed about how many grains of wheat are in one bushel than I was in who the Gere/girlfriend characters are, and what is the nature of their relationship. Don't get me wrong: I loved Malicks direction, but it can't compensate for a flawed script. It would be like me trying to make up for a lousy entree with a killer desert.
(2) Gere/girlfriend cheated the farmer (i.e., lied to him), so we're still to root for them?
(3) Gere/girlfriend chose to stay at the farm, to their detriment, but we're still to root for them? I get that they're in this struggle for survival, but aren't they still the protagonists? How then are we to feel compassion and be on edge for them, when, say, Gere flies away and leaves her? And then returns? I'll honestly say that during all of this I was thinking "I couldn't care less about all of this". Maybe I'm a cold hearted SOB, but Gere/girlfriend characters didn't strike any sympathy chord with me (partially because I didn't know who they are, and partially because of their conduct in the film), so this likely affected my enjoyment of these critical sequences until the end of the film.
I'll emphasize that this is just my take on the characters, so i'm not judging the film objectively, but my subjective take on it.

PQ and AQ were great, I'd say 4/5.

Only a 4 out of 5 for PQ This is considered the most beautifully filmed movie of all-time and got a perfect rating from Dr. Svet!!! Come on, I've seen you give questionable 4.5 and 5s before

[CZAR]

Being John Malkovich - Man this was a weird film. Im not sure if I liked it or not. The more I see of Catherine Keener the more I like her. I have become a big fan of Malkovich and that was the reason I wanted to see the film. I think it was a decent film but again very weird. It did keep my attention and certain parts were really good, but then other parts were kinda silly. Overall I would say u should atleast see it once.

Film Rating - 3 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!



Deep Blue Sea - This is my favorite shark film. I know Jaws is the big classic and paved the way for shark films, but to me this film was more entertaining and I loved the ability these sharks had. They were savages. Loved the cast and this film has one of the best surprise/shock moments I have ever seen. Im referring to the

[Show spoiler]Samuel Jackson speech part!

This film is good from the start to end and its a real roller coaster ride.

Film Rating - 4 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

[jhiggy23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8LTr51C-j0

[tbizzle]

The Wrestler - 4.25/5

I liked it a lot. I loved Rourke's portrayal as a wrestler and I think he did an amazing job. I love Marisa Tomei so I'll see anything with her in it. Btw if you're a fan of her, go see this movie immediately!

[Show spoiler]Lots of nudity

It was kinda sad the way Rourke's character basically lived for the sport and for his fans. In the end, be basically

[Show spoiler]lost his daughter for good (although never say never) and then he had to make a decision between his new found love and his passion.

Very good movie, I definitely recommend it

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

Shutter Island- .5/10

Very predictable. Enough said for those who have seen it, those who have not don't bother. The only reason I gave it a .5 is for the special features on the disc.

Damn, really? I disagree, but it is your opinion...just not sure how you could consider this a .5. There has to be at least something you find entertaining in the movie. The acting is top notice and the cinematography is beautiful.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Deep Blue Sea - This is my favorite shark film. I know Jaws is the big classic and paved the way for shark films, but to me this film was more entertaining and I loved the ability these sharks had. They were savages. Loved the cast and this film has one of the best surprise/shock moments I have ever seen. Im referring to the

[Show spoiler]Samuel Jackson speech part!

This film is good from the start to end and its a real roller coaster ride.

Film Rating - 4 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

The

[Show spoiler]Sam Jackson speech

part is one of the most hilarious things I've every seen

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

The Wrestler - 4.25/5

I liked it a lot. I loved Rourke's portrayal as a wrestler and I think he did an amazing job. I love Marisa Tomei so I'll see anything with her in it. Btw if you're a fan of her, go see this movie immediately!

[Show spoiler]Lots of nudity

It was kinda sad the way Rourke's character basically lived for the sport and for his fans. In the end, be basically

[Show spoiler]lost his daughter for good (although never say never) and then he had to make a decision between his new found love and his passion.

Very good movie, I definitely recommend it

One of my top 10 favorite movies. Raw and powerful filmmaking.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The

[Show spoiler]Sam Jackson speech

part is one of the most hilarious things I've every seen

Haha man when I first saw that part back in the theaters my mouth dropped.

[Show spoiler]Samuel never gets killed that early in a film, although u know that hollywood rule that black folks get killed first in horror type films

haha. Got Em!!