The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Foggy

What film should I watch tonight?

Kick-Ass or Scotty Pilgrim! Got Em!!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Kick-Ass or Scotty Pilgrim! Got Em!!

....scott pilgrim isn't out over here yet

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Foggy

....scott pilgrim isn't out over here yet

Darnit! Got Em!!

[dag]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i have not yet seen grave of the fireflies but i'll make sure she's home when we watch it. Squid and numerous people have told me it brings on the waterworks and is bleak and depressing, which i love of course lol but i think she's still a fan of "normal, upbeat" films. She doesn't fully get yet why i watch so many depressing films and aim in that direction for my favorites list and tastes. But of course that type of thing is hard to explain.

must watch

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Robin Hood (2010)

Film: 3.5/5

-Crowe and SCott made a great point: these type of epics with real sets and real extras are a dying breed with the CGI (Avatar, INception, etc) and Pixar/Cartoon movies that are hot now.

Which parts are you referring to?

[Show spoiler]The city folding I'm assuming right?

Because the majority of Inception didn't use CG to be created, that

[Show spoiler] no gravity fight in the hall

was practical.



I was really excited for Robin Hood, but it just didn't deliver overall for me. Great production design and such, it was very well made, but it just didn't click for me. I've said this (and more) before though

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

agree 100% on my viewing of Days of Heaven.

but for whatever reason, TTRL engaged me. It felt like a Baraka of war. As in Baraka, which just showed images without a biased perspective, I felt this did the same thing, except it just happened to be over a portion of the earth that happened to hosting a war conflict. There was some narration, but it seemed to encourage, not discourage, a perspective beyond each characters perspective, and look at a battle from a higher perspective. this came natural me since i am

[Show spoiler]god

no but seriously, i liked it a lot.

i'll see how New World turns out. I'll revisit Days of Heaven.

Good analogy, and I agree that was likely his intent.

My issue is rhythm and timing of message delivery. In Baraka, the events move in a direction that tells the story. The events are delivered in "stages" of a "stepping" pattern while moving down the path. This is what I call a "Rhythm". In TTRL the rhythm is broken a few times. I think of it as a lack of continuity of mood. This is what I refer to as clumsy. All the right stuff is there, he just doesnt put it together propery IMO.

He spends years editing and re-editing over and over and over. My suspicion is that he obsesses while searching for the rhythm.

How do I know this, you ask? Kuz I'm a freakin' Genius of course.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

squid, i was reading through some of the avatar discussions from this summer and stumbled upon this marvel of a post. Dunno why, but i seriously laughed my ass off when i read this again!

https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/127...ml#post3462566

:d

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

The Shawshank Redemption

[Show spoiler](netflix instant)

year: 1994
director: Frank Darabont
starring: Tim Robbins (Andy) and Morgan Freeman ("Red")

i apologize in advance for what may be a 60,000 word essay on a film almost everyone has already seen being as it's intensely popular, well known and has been out for 16 years.

first thing's first: i enjoyed the film tremendously i was a little surprised the film was as upbeat as it was. i was kind of expecting a more bleaker film that had a happy ending. the whole film, aside from a few moments is generally lighthearted and not difficult to watch or sit through. i guess it makes sense seeing as it sit at #1 on imdb's top 250 list, and i'm sure most people don't like dark, bleak and depressing films as much as i and a few members on here do but i didn't deduct points for the film not being what i thought it would be.

the story is wonderful, as true friendship is found inside the walls of Shawshank prison. Andy, a new prisoner at Shawshank who has been sentenced to two life sentences for a double murder he states he did not commit, becomes good friends with "Red" who is well known, liked, has resources and has been in prison for a very long time and knows all the ropes. Andy's former career as a banker makes him much more special to the Warden than all the other prisoners and this leads to him learning things and having facts / proof that no one else does.

a great ending also gives the film a solid feel good ending which easily makes The Shawshank Redemption great for repeat viewings. the performances of the two main leads Robbins and Freeman also help as both are likable and charming men inside a vicious place.

however, a few minor quirks i had with the film:

1) the atmosphere. it just never felt like a prison. prison's are dangerous places, filled with brutal people, and hostile environments. but aside from a few scenes, Andy's prison sentence is essentially a walk in the park. it felt completely unrealistic in this sense that everyone in the Red's group likes him and he has almost no problems. and when he does have a problem

[Show spoiler]the guards take care of it for him.

but even if he doesn't have an issue, because he is who he is, we don't see anyone else having a problem either. yes, the

[Show spoiler]guy on the first night gets beaten, but that's it. the tense "this is gonna be brutal" atmosphere dies after that.

not a huge complaint, and i know the film isn't centered around that. but seeing everyone all cheery and laughing and best friends is not how prison is.

2) Morgan Freeman. i didn't have any issue with him in the film, don't get me wrong. but Freeman as a

[Show spoiler]convicted murderer?

that just was hard to believe and take in. i know a lot of debate on this site goes over "great actors" and i know Squid says certain actors suffer from being themselves (a la "Harrison Ford syndrome"). and while Freeman is always great, he suffers from that here. i think because of the upbeat, positive nature of the film he fits the role well. but maybe they should have made him

[Show spoiler]innocent as well, because having him actually be a murderer?

i found that kind of hard to believe because he's just so peaceful and nice. and as David Fincher says in the Seven commentary, "i thought Freeman was great as the President in Deep Impact. i think he should run in real life. i would totally vote for him" and that sums it up perfectly. Freeman is a great actor, but he always place the nice guy role (from everything i've seen him in) so this was a tad odd. but nothing that ruined or came close to wrecking the film or the story - because he did fit the rest of the role well.

ironically enough, while the film was going on i said, "wait. who's the villain? what's the issue? is this just a character piece of two men who form a friendship in the most unsuspecting place? or is there something else i'm missing? i'm 90 minutes in and... there's no drama or issue anymore... and we're in a prison...?" and then right after i thought that

[Show spoiler]we see that the Warden obviously has an issue with Tommy knowing who actually killed Andy's wife and lover

and thus, we now know the villain / problem of the film i was kind of surprised it took that long (over half way through the film) to get to it, but i didn't mind that much

for a 2.5 hour film, it goes by amazingly fast. which is always a plus

i liked it a lot, although i must admit, it was a bit to cheery ho-hum for me. i know that sounds strange because most people like a good, positive story and this will be one i would more than likely revisit from time to time because of that fact, but it's not exactly my area of enjoyment for film. but of course i'm not saying Shawshank is bad, quite the contrary. glad i finally watched the film so i know what all the buzz is about. well worth it.

+ love the friendship between Andy and Red. it feels real. it is real. and the two men seem to respect and understand each other, while at the same time learning a lot about each other and other things while in prison together. and seeing that they

[Show spoiler]stay friends when they are outside of prison

is also a great thing. i wasn't expecting such a "true friendship" story line to unfold.

does it make my top 50? no. does it make my list somewhere between 100-150? probably quite easily once i do make that list and get that far. and chances are i would pick this up someday, so on a rainy day if i don't feel like getting depressed and down i can watch this and cheer myself up

4/5

Kinda short, and lacking detail, but a decent review I guess.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Kinda short, and lacking detail, but a decent review I guess.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Paranoid Park (netflix instant)

[Show spoiler]year: 2007
director: Gus Van Sant
starring: Gabe Nevins

Paranoid Park, AKA: Awful Film. :vomit:

i remember seeing previews for Paranoid Park a few years back and it looked extremely interesting. so i was glad to see it on netflix instant and decided to end my night / start my day with it.

what a terrible, terrible mistake

the film centers around a teenager who has to live with a terrible tragedy that he was involved with and how it effects him personal and with his relationships. the film starts with the "end" and is told through flashbacks as we piece together what happened. but it's awful and no one should waste their time. i'd rather drink paint thinner than watch this again.

NEGATIVES
1. Gabe Nevins: he plays the most important character, Alex, and the one with most screen time, but the kid can't act his way out of a wet paper bag. he's awful. truly, truly awful. even his voice overs are so annoying, mind numbing and "oh my god where is a pick-axe to stab into my cranium with?" anger inducing words cannot describe. simply pathetic. i honestly thought he was 10 years old. and he's playing a 16 year old. and i just looked him up, and in 2007 he would've been 16. and he got hired when he was auditioning as an extra. and this is his only role. ever. it really, really shows. great casting

2. everyone else in the movie. i can't remember the last time i saw so many people stare at the camera or look at the camera and not have that take taken out of the film. horrid. absolutely horrid. and the acting by everyone is awful. like they took awful lessons or something.

3. the directing / atmosphere. i swear the director has watched 2001: A Space Odyssey too many times and thought that the slow burning nature with minimal dialogue that 2001 uses would work great with.. skateboarding :vomit: absolutely not. it's laughably bad. there are about 4-5 moments when, for about 2-3 minutes a piece we see a crappy montage of skateboarders doing tricks or riding around in slow motion with some horrid song behind it.

4. the structure. another complete mess. but by this time i could barely even see how bad the structure was behind the craptastic directing, "random guy at the bus stop" acting of the cast, and the 'look me at me trying to be artsy' slow motion montages of gobildigook.

i could go on and on.

POSITIVES
1. the film is only 82 minutes. but it still felt like 4 years off my life :death2:

i'm trying not to give every film i hate a 0/5, and Paranoid Park really tested my patience. i'm gonna gave it a bit more of a score (1/5) because it was so laughably bad i wanted to see how much worse it could get. so i guess that's something.

avoid with all caution!

1/5

LOL at how different we all are. I liked it enough to rate it 4/5.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

hmm. seems to be the general consensus that Ponyo is like, right in the middle of Miyazaki's films are far are "best" and "worst" go, so i'm glad i started here.



:

You are going to trip out on the range of how different his films are. Theme, style and "look".

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Yeah, i'd say "Cool Hand Luke" and "Papillion" are better "prison" movies than Shawshank, but Shawshank has the great Roger Deakins behind the camera and that counts for quite a bit. It's a solid, solid movie even if it's a bit sentimental.


And now for the Riff Magnum Thread Crap of the day:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Deadw...Blu-ray/13179/


This is the best piece of art ever. Bettter than any movie. Better than any book. Better than any album. Better than any drug. Better than any sex you THINK you've had........................and it will be MINE!!!!!

This is the best piece of art ever. Perhaps

Bettter than any movie. Maybe

Better than any book. Possibly

Better than any album. Likely

Better than any drug. Definitely

Better than any sex you THINK you've had. NO CHANCE!!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Robin Hood (2010)

Film: 3.5/5

Let me get the bad part out of the way:
-I had it rated at 4/5 until Marion

[Show spoiler]suited up in 50lb armour, with a heavy sword, charges on a horse -- with a pre-K class charging behind her, and knocks the head villain off his horse in the middle of a crowded battle

...I mean really???? Forget the "squid test", that doesn't even pass a 100 IQ test. Ridley Scott said he was aiming for a most-realistic Robin HOod tale with everything being as historically accurate as possible. The realism was a 9/10 until that moment
-Other than that, I loved the film! I don't know what all the griping was about. Yes, there was less action than Gladiator/etc, but it felt very "Kingdom of Heaven'y" (i.e., more emphasis on plot/characters, and less on action).
-Great theme of tyranny v. liberty, one that never dies and is even more relevant in today's world
-GORGEOUS COUNTRYSIDE FOOTAGE!!! I could watch this film on mute and be enthrailled!! Plus, I love the Ridley-Scott use of bluish hue he always has, almost like you're watching the film through a bluish filter. Looks gorgeous!
-Crowe and SCott made a great point: these type of epics with real sets and real extras are a dying breed with the CGI (Avatar, INception, etc) and Pixar/Cartoon movies that are hot now. Do you guys see these type of epics with real sets/real extras dying off?? It makes me sad if so

PQ: 5/5 (reference!)

AQ: 4.5/5 (great)

I pray they dont disappear. Frozen is a recent example of a film that benefited SO MUCH from the real location. I thought it added greatly to the realism and mood.

[Steve46]

A Very Long Engagement

2004 - 133 minutes
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring Audrey Tautou
French with subtitles

I love Amélie and it's now in my Top 20, so I decided it was time to see something by the same director with the same leading actress.

I don't like war films and knew that this dealt with WW1, but I hoped that Jeunet would use some of the storytelling techniques used in Amélie.

Full disclosure: I could happily stare into Audrey Tautou's eyes for...years. She can express so much just using her face.

The only Blu-ray version of this is French and costly to import for a blind buy, so I borrowed the DVD from the local library.

I spent the last three hours watching the movie and special features.

The opening titles hint at what it is to follow and it's because the atmosphere is set by Angelo Badalamenti's score. The music was excellent throughout.

Like Amélie, this was a visual feast. The film is vast in scope and includes period shots of Paris and many shots of the French countryside. The use of color really stood out too.

The opening scenes were gruesome as Jeunet made his intentions clear. War is not pretty. The mud and rain in the trenches illustrate just how desolate the lives of the soldiers had to have been. Hard to maintain any kind of hope under the circumstances.

The story is built around five soldiers who

[Show spoiler]are sent into no man's land after being found guilty of faking wounds, although one is innocent

. The main viewpoint is that of Mathilde (Tautou) who is engaged to one of the soldiers. It's a tale of hope and desperation as she refuses to believe that he's dead. She hires an investigator and makes enquiries of her own.

Tautou had to learn how to play the tuba for the part. The only instrument capable of sounding a distress call. She also had to learn to run with a limp as her character had polio as a child.

As in Amélie, Jeunet throws a lot of detail at the viewer. In particular, he goes into the background of his characters and makes them feel more real.

There are some amusing moments mixed in with the despair and sadness in what I believe is Jeunet's style. He also refers to character traits mentioned early in the film and they become more powerful throughout the story.

Like many good films, this has the ability to make you laugh and cry. The story flies by at just over two hours. There's a cameo from Jodie Foster acting in French and her character has an important role.

It's not quite as good as Amélie, but then not many films are. If you liked that, it's certainly worth investing your time to see this.

Now I have to figure out how to import the Blu-ray without breaking the bank.

Overall score 4.5/5

[Steve46]

If only some of these were true...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Deadset

Yeah. He asks if his long reviews are OK, we say yes, and he proceeds to deliver his "War and Peace".

Gotta love 'em though. Plenty of effort and well thought out.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

If only some of these were true...

I wish.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yeah. He asks if his long reviews are OK, we say yes, and he proceeds to deliver his "War and Peace".

Gotta love 'em though. Plenty of effort and well thought out.

No doubt! They are quite long, but informative. They dwarf my small paragraph ones in this thread.

[iam1bearcat]

Jacob's Ladder (dvd)

year: 1990
director: Adrian Lyne
starring: Tim Robbins (Jacob Singer)

i've been meaning to see Jacob's Ladder for a ling time. finally got to it today, and damn glad i didn't put it off any longer

an awesome film. i loved it. an easy edition at least to my Top 100 Favorite Films

the story follows Singer after he leaves his unit during the Vietnam war. the film opens with a bizarre scene where his group is quickly under attack but the soldiers experience erratic behavior.

however, when Jacob leaves and is back home, things aren't quite right as he begins to experience delusions and sites of demons. but is it really happening? or is it a dream? or is it PTSD? or something else entirely. the film wraps up these questions nicely. although, thinking about what's happening:

[Show spoiler]the drug "The Ladder" doesn't seem very useful. a drug that makes people angry... okay... and what would make them ONLY attack the enemy? and how would you get them to stop? and that's exactly what goes wrong. they attack each other. jeez, what geniuses

i had a minor issue with how illogical... or just plain stupid a certain aspect of it was. but that didn't ruin the film for me

i love the feel of the film. atmosphere wise, it felt a lot like The Crow in the sense of a creepy, dirty, seedy, grimy world where no matter what we see, it feels uncomfortable. Jacob's Ladder was great in this sense, and some of the visuals really make it intensely creepy and frightening loved it

for big fans of the movie, check out the music video "Nightmare" by Avenged Sevenfold, because it's almost a shot for shot remake / montage of a certain scene in Jacob's Ladder:

[Show spoiler]after he jumps out of the car and is being wheeled down for "x-rays" and he sees all the craziness while he's on the gurney

. just a neat little detail i picked up while watching this

i also loved the analogy Jacob's doctor gives about demons and angels. i don't know if it's been said in something else, but i loved that

[Show spoiler]demons and angels are the same entity, it just depends on what your mind set is. you see demons when you refuse to let go and acknowledge what has happened and they're there to rip your life away, and they become angels when you let go and are ready to "leave" earth

.

glad i watched it. will be buying it eventually. wonderfully dark, psychological thriller with a "whoa..." ending.
exactly what i love in films. highly recommended.
but i'm sure everyone will say "duh!" since it's 20 years old

4.5/5

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Excellent review.

The Green Mile weighs in at just over three hours and also features some strong acting performances. It's another Darabont adaptation of a Stephen King short story. It's also set in a prison, but, like Shawshank, focuses on the characters. Hanks, Rockwell and Clarke Duncan stand out in that one if you're ever in the mood.

thanks steve!
i will definitely be checking out The Green Mile eventually (sooner than later). wow. Darabont directs that too? and it's a King novel? jeez, that's at least 3 now. what are they best friends?

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Just stop posting altogether.

#2

i should have known you'd have some witty response!

Originally Posted by CZAR

Well glad u liked it a good deal. Thought u wouldve gave it a higher score but its all good. It will always be the best film in my eyes. I thought for back in the day the prison atmosphere was great especially with the cop brutality and whatnot. Also u have to know in prison certain guys have those connections with the guards and are backed by hella people thus why Red's character was easily believable. Also u have to remember

[Show spoiler]Morgan was in prison for ions and he commited murder when he was very young.

Im sure its easy to believe an 18 year old or whatever couldve commited murder. U looked at him at his age in the film and thats not when he commited murder. He grew up and knew what he did was wrong. I had no issues with the points u made and hopefully some of those explanations help. Anyway glad u watched it though. Got Em!!

to the bolded part: that's a great point Czar! i didn't even really think of it like that. but yes, Freeman at this age

[Show spoiler]didn't commit the murder

that happened much, much earlier and he could have been a different person completely, and thus, it wouldn't be "Freeman". great, great point. i'll remember that for my next viewing. not that it wrecked anything, just found it odd they chose him for that, but the character he portrays NOW - not then - fits him perfectly.