The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

I haven't been on alot, but I guess I'll put up a movie review (ported from facebook). Into the Wild

[Show spoiler]Into the Wild: 2.5 out of 4

If there is a choice of the person, it's very easy to question his tenacity, where that choice would be something most would not accept. Take Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch); a college graduate who is bored of his life, in fact very unstable, along with a family that seems stable, but is actually have dark problems themselves, that he intends to go off to Alaska to live in the wild, with no help from the outside world. The problem he has is that he needs that help in order to survive. His venture through South Dakota and Colorado, to Mexico and California, to the Northwest Canada and then Alaska where he takes shelter in an abandoned bus. Along the way he meets people that share similar problems but not exactly similar sentiments, he meets new friends during his trip, meets the unfortunate side of others, but his desire is to not face the world of man, and instead into the wild, where he died there (not a spoiler; it's a biopic).

The film is a feast of the sense, showcasing the vistas of South Western America and the wilderness of Alaska, that alone is worth the price of admission, especially a treat with a great print of the film or a high definition copy, along with some well developed secondary character arcs to give characters care to them. Christopher however is very difficult to care about, and sentimentalizes his pretentious and child-like actions; which turns it into an overlong, adrenaline fantasy, well done however. A Great cameo by Hal Holbrook, and Kai Shelton works as a Special effects coordinator. Remember when you go out of your way to get out, you might not want to face nature alone.

Nicely written review, although I obviously disagree with the rating. That's the difficulty with a film like this--ppl's view on McCandless determines their rating. If you think he's stupid, you won't feel sympathy and won't like the movie. If you can relate to him, you'll like the movie. If you can separate yourself and take the movie as it is, without choosing a side, you'll like the movie. The book, btw, is excellent, although it gets off-topic at times.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by killowertz

It's not really just the direction I had problems with in Domino. It had potential, but it was lacking in pretty much everything but the acting. Some didn't think Keira Knightley was right for the part, but I think she could have pulled it off if the material was better. Oh well.

As far as some of Tony Scott's other work, I did like Top Gun and Days of Thunder (Heaven? WTF? ). Enemy of the State I think was one of his best, which is the only one I own. I enjoyed Man on Fire and thought Deja Vu and The Last Boy Scout were alright, but I can't really comment on the rest.

Tony Scott is a director that puts viscerality over subtlety, which is his trademark.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Tony Scott is a director that puts viscerality over subtlety, which is his trademark.

You're right. The question is whether the films would be better off with subtlety.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Nicely written review, although I obviously disagree with the rating. That's the difficulty with a film like this--ppl's view on McCandless determines their rating. If you think he's stupid, you won't feel sympathy and won't like the movie. If you can relate to him, you'll like the movie. If you can separate yourself and take the movie as it is, without choosing a side, you'll like the movie. The book, btw, is excellent, although it gets off-topic at times.

If that was the real life McCandless, I'd though of him as a rich little snob who is just bored of his life. I get very tired of sentimentalizing rich people, which is why I like the movie more for it's secondary characters that feel more believable than McCandless' sentimentalized character. Not the character himself affected my rating, but celebrating it made me though they turned this story into an adrenaline fantasy.

[Big-byrd]

the fall

awesome hd movie, also there was no cgi used

10/10

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

If that was the real life McCandless, I'd though of him as a rich little snob who is just bored of his life. I get very tired of sentimentalizing rich people, which is why I like the movie more for it's secondary characters that feel more believable than McCandless' sentimentalized character. Not the character himself affected my rating, but celebrating it made me though they turned this story into an adrenaline fantasy.

I certainly understand your sentiment and don't disagree with it. However, the film far from glamorizes McCandless. The concluding quote of the film displays that point--

[Show spoiler]happiness is only real when shared

That was the real McCandless btw--the film followed reality very closely.

[CZAR]

From Paris With Love - I had a friend that kept telling me how good this movie was and I almost blind bought it but I just couldnt pull the trigger. I now wish I wouldve blind bought it because it was a very entertaining film. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. Travolta was awesome in this roll! The pacing of the film was perfect and the twist was crazy. My wow moment was when

[Show spoiler]Travolta got that phone call while they were all eating dinner and then he just shoots that chick in the head!

Wowzers! Very good film and it has very good replay value so I will be adding it soon to the collection.

Film Rating - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

PQ - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

AQ - 5 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

[Denoku]

That part was awesome!

You should watch Law Abiding Citizen if you haven't seen that. I watched From Paris With Love and Law Abiding Citizen. Both were awesome.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Domino

Well i dont know how to put this but it has the same directing style as Man on Fire with a HORRIBLE story line. Since im a win win type of guy you can put this movie on and just watch it for the heck of it and it will be a little entertaining. But besides that this movie is pretty horrible. Im glad i paid 8 bucks for it because i probably wont ever watch it again. FOR FANS ONLY

2.0/5

I couldn't even finish this film. Style's too crazy for me, couldn't get into the story. Meh...

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I certainly understand your sentiment and don't disagree with it. However, the film far from glamorizes McCandless. The concluding quote of the film displays that point--

[Show spoiler]happiness is only real when shared

That was the real McCandless btw--the film followed reality very closely.

The film (tries to appear) argues about his intentions, but I still find they celebrate it when it's suppose to conclude that it was what ruined him.

I enjoy having these conversations. I feel alot better talking to someone about film not by objective or value, but from the artistic intention of what we are watching, which is viewed from your personal prespective, not just saying "I like the film", "That guy is hot" or "The special effects and acting is great", these are objective elements that put "objective" in film, which I believe is a death sentence to the artform of filmmaking. If films were viewed merely objectively, I never even would bother watching them and would just sit down and just play Call of Duty.

I don't like wathcing films objectively, because if I look just at the technical aspects of the film, I cannot truly understand the person's (or the director's) real motivation or why he is suffering, or if I look at it historically, I would view him more as a hero. These areas distract people that they never look at themselves or their world around them, as if it's passing entertainment to them; you might as well play a video game. I enjoy films based on what they present and why they present it, not because it's good or not. I know a lot of films are made to make money and are served as escapism, but should I have to put my standards down when I watch them, and what if I wanted to view true humanity in the movies I watch? Those moments are what made a power of what I enjoy watching.

I felt I wanted to put it in my argument to mention what I feel that why I enjoy watching films.

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I've been meaning to see it.

It's a kickass series. After hearing many recommendations, I blind bought it during an Amazon sale last year and I loved it. Can't wait to watch it again. This is definitely the most accurate portrayal of modern day soldiers and makes The Hurt Locker look like a joke.... oh wait.....

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

[BluPrince]

Originally Posted by CZAR

From Paris With Love - I had a friend that kept telling me how good this movie was and I almost blind bought it but I just couldnt pull the trigger. I now wish I wouldve blind bought it because it was a very entertaining film. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. Travolta was awesome in this roll! The pacing of the film was perfect and the twist was crazy. My wow moment was when

[Show spoiler]Travolta got that phone call while they were all eating dinner and then he just shoots that chick in the head!

Wowzers! Very good film and it has very good replay value so I will be adding it soon to the collection.

Film Rating - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

PQ - 4 1/2 stars (out of 5)

AQ - 5 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

I found this film to be so cheesy that my lactose intolerance wouldnt let me finish the movie

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by BluPrince

I found this film to be so cheesy that my lactose intolerance wouldnt let me finish the movie

Heaven Forbid an Action Movie be cheesy

[tbizzle]

Everlasting Moments - 4.75/5

I didn't give it a 5/5 because I didn't quite love it, but everything about this film is great, I highly recommend it. It started off slow for me, but once I got to know the characters and story, I become immersed. Not sure if I want to buy this one yet, but this will be one that I'll enjoy even more the second time around

Walkabout - 3.5/5

I liked it. The direction and cinematography seemed kinda experimental and in a lot of ways I liked that, but overall I didn't connect with the film too much. That was my feeling right after I finished the film last night, but now that I've had time to mull it over, it's starting to grow on me a lot. I think I'll enjoy this much more upon my second viewing. It's late, so this is more or less my thoughts strewn together

[Show spoiler]The film was heavily laden with themes, and the way they were displayed was interesting, especially some of the back to back blatant comparison shots. One of them showed the aborigine working to hunt and kill the animals, then there were shots of butchers hacking away at meat... very different cultures.

I went back and read some of the discussion about this film and here's my take on the "perv" aspect. From the beginning, there were a lot of shots that focused on the girl (wearing a short skirt) and the exciting "give us a peek" type of suspense started to build. I think this is a play on how much sex and nudity is built up in society, when it's completely natural. The opposite was shown when the aboriginee's found the car, and there were several shots that zoomed in on their nude bodies, clearly showing that them being nude was just part of life. I loved the raw contrast. For a long time, we almost get a look at her in her panties, and then it finally happens. Yep, suspense is over. I mean yeah, she looks great like that, but generally the excitement is built up in the anticipation. Then all of the anticipation is thrown out the window when she is shown naked, but it's beautiful the way it was filmed. Anyways, that's my take on why the director had so many shots focused on her alone. Btw, I agree with you Jhiggy, I'm not a fan of the long zooming in shots, but at the same, I kinda liked them in this film because it just gives it that classic film feel. That's a technique that's rarely ever used nowadays, so it felt even more vintage to me

I had no problem with the girl not reacting much when her father did what he did. It seemed as though he wasn't much of a father (maybe even alcoholic and/or abusive) and the daughter was fine with him being dead, especially since there was almost no chemistry (well...good chemistry) between them in the few shots they were together. Plus, she needed to be composed for her little brother.

The weather scientists were kinda random, but upon thinking about those scenes, it made a lot more sense to me. The pervy anticipation begins again, but it's not the viewer's anticipation this time, it's the men in the film. The men are doing everything they can just to get peak, even if it's just a nipple. I'm actually starting to like this director more

When the kids found the weather balloon, one of them asked "I wonder where it came from?" To me, them finding a random balloon out there was sort of saying that the outsiders definitely didn't belong in the desert. When the balloon popped, it scared the shit out of the aborigine, but the kids were unfazed.... just shows you the difference between the cultures and how raw and open the aborigine's emotions are. Later when the girl misunderstood that he was doing his mating ritual, I think that it showed how conditioned by society she was. She didn't stop to think about what he was really doing and she seemed to have no inclination to figure it out. She had been conditioned and dulled by society and couldn't communicate with the aborigine on any level, however her brother hadn't been "muted" much yet. He had no problems with communication

Anyways, I think I'll end up getting this later in the year when the next Criterion sale comes around. Btw, I watched For All Mankind and liked it a lot but fell asleep during a good portion towards the end. I'll need to revisit this one again someday.

[tbizzle]

Also, I'm not sure if

[Show spoiler]the aborigine was dead. When he's in the tree, he's blinking and the little boy even says "he won't take it". So he's definitely alive at that point. But someone (surf?) pointed out that later on, the little boy asked if their father was dead too, implying that the aborigine was dead. I remember a shot of a tree afterwards, but was it supposed to be the tree that the aborigine was in? If so, then he was gone and I guess he must be alive. I never got the feeling that the tree shown was the one the aborigine was in, but I could be wrong

I didn't read all of your discussions, did you guys ever come to a conclusion?

Btw that Walkaloop comment had me rollin

[jawsfan1975]

THE MATRIX.

As the review on this site stated, this is the perfect film for blu ray. GREAT PQ and AQ. Although I'll need to watch it again for the lobby shootout louder as my son was sleeping.

9/10.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

It's a kickass series. After hearing many recommendations, I blind bought it during an Amazon sale last year and I loved it. Can't wait to watch it again. This is definitely the most accurate portrayal of modern day soldiers and makes The Hurt Locker look like a joke.... oh wait.....

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

You are correct! I'm in the military and I can tell u first hand that the most accurate movies I've watched so far is We were soldiers and generation kill! The hurt locker is a good movie but not realist at all!! If u err did the things he did (as far a dis-arming bombs without following the right procedures) u'd quickly find yourself discharged for negligence!!

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I couldn't even finish this film. Style's too crazy for me, couldn't get into the story. Meh...

Me 2 I don't remember the ending and I saw it yesterday lol

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

The film (tries to appear) argues about his intentions, but I still find they celebrate it when it's suppose to conclude that it was what ruined him.

I enjoy having these conversations. I feel alot better talking to someone about film not by objective or value, but from the artistic intention of what we are watching, which is viewed from your personal prespective, not just saying "I like the film", "That guy is hot" or "The special effects and acting is great", these are objective elements that put "objective" in film, which I believe is a death sentence to the artform of filmmaking. If films were viewed merely objectively, I never even would bother watching them and would just sit down and just play Call of Duty.

I don't like wathcing films objectively, because if I look just at the technical aspects of the film, I cannot truly understand the person's (or the director's) real motivation or why he is suffering, or if I look at it historically, I would view him more as a hero. These areas distract people that they never look at themselves or their world around them, as if it's passing entertainment to them; you might as well play a video game. I enjoy films based on what they present and why they present it, not because it's good or not. I know a lot of films are made to make money and are served as escapism, but should I have to put my standards down when I watch them, and what if I wanted to view true humanity in the movies I watch? Those moments are what made a power of what I enjoy watching.

I felt I wanted to put it in my argument to mention what I feel that why I enjoy watching films.

You make some interesting points.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Everlasting Moments - 4.75/5

I didn't give it a 5/5 because I didn't quite love it, but everything about this film is great, I highly recommend it. It started off slow for me, but once I got to know the characters and story, I become immersed. Not sure if I want to buy this one yet, but this will be one that I'll enjoy even more the second time around

Walkabout - 3.5/5

I liked it. The direction and cinematography seemed kinda experimental and in a lot of ways I liked that, but overall I didn't connect with the film too much. That was my feeling right after I finished the film last night, but now that I've had time to mull it over, it's starting to grow on me a lot. I think I'll enjoy this much more upon my second viewing. It's late, so this is more or less my thoughts strewn together

[Show spoiler]The film was heavily laden with themes, and the way they were displayed was interesting, especially some of the back to back blatant comparison shots. One of them showed the aborigine working to hunt and kill the animals, then there were shots of butchers hacking away at meat... very different cultures.

I went back and read some of the discussion about this film and here's my take on the "perv" aspect. From the beginning, there were a lot of shots that focused on the girl (wearing a short skirt) and the exciting "give us a peek" type of suspense started to build. I think this is a play on how much sex and nudity is built up in society, when it's completely natural. The opposite was shown when the aboriginee's found the car, and there were several shots that zoomed in on their nude bodies, clearly showing that them being nude was just part of life. I loved the raw contrast. For a long time, we almost get a look at her in her panties, and then it finally happens. Yep, suspense is over. I mean yeah, she looks great like that, but generally the excitement is built up in the anticipation. Then all of the anticipation is thrown out the window when she is shown naked, but it's beautiful the way it was filmed. Anyways, that's my take on why the director had so many shots focused on her alone. Btw, I agree with you Jhiggy, I'm not a fan of the long zooming in shots, but at the same, I kinda liked them in this film because it just gives it that classic film feel. That's a technique that's rarely ever used nowadays, so it felt even more vintage to me

I had no problem with the girl not reacting much when her father did what he did. It seemed as though he wasn't much of a father (maybe even alcoholic and/or abusive) and the daughter was fine with him being dead, especially since there was almost no chemistry (well...good chemistry) between them in the few shots they were together. Plus, she needed to be composed for her little brother.

The weather scientists were kinda random, but upon thinking about those scenes, it made a lot more sense to me. The pervy anticipation begins again, but it's not the viewer's anticipation this time, it's the men in the film. The men are doing everything they can just to get peak, even if it's just a nipple. I'm actually starting to like this director more

When the kids found the weather balloon, one of them asked "I wonder where it came from?" To me, them finding a random balloon out there was sort of saying that the outsiders definitely didn't belong in the desert. When the balloon popped, it scared the shit out of the aborigine, but the kids were unfazed.... just shows you the difference between the cultures and how raw and open the aborigine's emotions are. Later when the girl misunderstood that he was doing his mating ritual, I think that it showed how conditioned by society she was. She didn't stop to think about what he was really doing and she seemed to have no inclination to figure it out. She had been conditioned and dulled by society and couldn't communicate with the aborigine on any level, however her brother hadn't been "muted" much yet. He had no problems with communication

Anyways, I think I'll end up getting this later in the year when the next Criterion sale comes around. Btw, I watched For All Mankind and liked it a lot but fell asleep during a good portion towards the end. I'll need to revisit this one again someday.

Yeah, Everlasting Moments is an absolute gem. Absolutely should've gotten the Oscar nod that year, even if that meant Revanche not being nominated.

You fell asleep during a good portion of For All Mankind??? The film is 80 minutes long!